Monarchs' Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State

Studia Ceranea 5, 2015, p. 267–310 ISSN: 2084-140X DOI: 10.18778/2084-140X.05.09 e-ISSN: 2449-8378

Ian S.R. Mladjov (Bowling Green)

Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State*

n modern historiographical practice, Bulgaria’s rulers over the ages are assigned Iconsecutive ordinal numbers without distinction between monarchs who reigned under different titles, for example: Boris I (852–889), Boris II (969–977), and Boris III (1918–1943), or Simeon I (893–927) and Simeon II (1943–1946)1. Such numeration has only been assumed formally by modern rulers, reigning after 18782. Its application to medieval monarchs is convenient and relatively unexceptional when compared with historiographical practices in other modern societ- ies. There are, however, certain inconsistencies that have been introduced into the names and numbering of monarchs due to a combination of oversight and misunderstanding. Names like Ivan II Asen, Mihail II Asen, Georgi I Terter, Ivan IV Smilec, and Mihail III Šišman, which are found commonly in the historical literature, are inaccurate or inconsistent in various ways. A re-examination of the subject, focusing on double names, yields a regularized and improved naming and numbering system with only minor effective emendation.

* Although the editorial board follows the principle of Anglicizing / Latinizing the personal and family names of historical figures, their spelling in this text has been left unaltered at the special insistence of the author [Editors’ note]. 1 Of these, Boris I was a king (rex in papal letters, although the old generic term for monarch used in contemporary Bulgarian sources, knjaz, subsequently came to designate the usually non-sovereign title of prince), Boris II was emperor (car / tsar), and Boris III was king (roi des bulgares in diplomatic usage, although he used the traditional medieval title of tsar); Simeon I was king and then emperor, and Simeon II, king. This is not the place to discuss the titles of Bulgarian monarchs at length, and the usage has been based on comparisons to that in the contemporary diplomatic languages (Greek and Latin in the Middle Ages); compare note 138 below. Names are provided in standardized modern forms in the various vernaculars (e.g., Ivan, not Ioann), including, for non-Latin-based alpha- bets, forms in scientific transliteration (e.g., Teodora for Теодора, Theodōra for Θεοδώρα). 2 The only possible attestation of a similar numbering in a medieval Bulgarian source might be found in a Bulgarian gloss to the Middle Bulgarian translation of the Chronicle of Kōnstantinos Manassēs, where the duration of Byzantine domination in Bulgaria was qualified as extending even to the emperor of the Bulgarians Asen, the first (даже и до Асѣнѣ, ц(а)рѣ блъгарѡм’ пръвааго) [in:] М. А. САЛМИНА et al., Среднеболгарский перевод хроники Константина Манасии в славянских литературах, София 1988, p. 234. 268 Ian S.R. Mladjov

I. Basic Typology of Names After Bulgaria’s conversion to Christianity in the 860s, Bulgarian rulers bore personal names that can be categorized according to three basic types, not including names assumed when taking holy orders: (1) Secular names drawn from the folk traditions of Bulgars and Slavs, like Boris, Vladimir, Presian, Boril, and Smilec; (2) Baptismal names drawn from the Biblical and Christian traditions current in contemporary Byzantium, like Mihail, Simeon, Petăr, Roman, Samuil, and Ivan; (3) Double names usually formed by pairing two names from the other two types with each other, like Gavril Radomir, Ivan Vladislav, Todor Svetoslav, Ivan Sracimir, and Ivan Šišman. In such cases the Christian baptismal name precedes the secular folk name3. Such double names are not confined to monarchs, and can be found among nobles and commoners alike4. This phenomenon is also well-attested in Serbia5. In Kievan Rus’ double names were also common until the late 13th century, but they

3 On double names see Н. КОВАЧЕВ, Двойни лични имена в българската антропонимия, БЕ 31 / 4, 1984, p. 367–371, and also the remarks of П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения от 1257 до 1277 година, СБАН 11, 1920, p. 53, an. 2. 4 Nobles, for example: Georgi Vojteh [В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История на българската държава през средните векове, vol. II, България под византийско владичество (1018–1187), София 1934, p. 138; Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση, ed. E. Tsolakes, Thessalonica 1968 (cetera: Continuator of Skylitzēs), p. 163: Γεώργιος ὁ Βοϊτάχος (= ΕΜΣ.ΙΜΧΑ, 105)], Aleksij Slav [И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията на Асеневци (1186–1460), София 1985, p. 95–98, № I 11; Стара българска книжнина, vol. II, ed. И. ДУЙЧЕВ, София 1944, p. 30–35, № 15: Ἀλέξιος Δεσπότης ὁ Σθλάβος (cetera: Книжнина, vol. II)], Jakov Svetoslav (Книжнина, vol. II, p. 64, № 27: Iіакова С[вѧ]тослава деспотѣ), Ivan Dragušin (Х. МАТАНОВ, Нови сведения за родственици на деспот Елтимир / Алдимир / , ГСУ.НЦСВПИД 81, 1987, p. 107–113, and И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите на средновековна България – Второ българско царство, София 1998, p. 58); commoners, for example the copyist Ivan called Dragoslav (Iѡанъ зовом(ь) Драгославъ), in a 1262 gloss in the Com- pendium sent to Russia by Jakov Svetoslav, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 351–352, № 27; Konstantin the lector, called Voisil the Grammarian (Костандинъ чьт(ь)ць а зовомь Воисиль граматикь) and Geor- gi the presbyter, called Father Radoslav (презвитерю Геѡргию а зовомь поп(о)у Радославѹ) in the 1278 / 1279 gloss to the Svrlig gospels, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 65–66, № 29; and Georgi called Hrăb (Геѡрьги а зов(о)мь Хр(ь)бь), in a late-14th-century inscription from Zaječar, in Старобългарски надписи / Altbulgarischen Inschriften, vol. II, ed. K. Popkonstantinov, O. Kronsteiner, Wien 1997 (cetera: Надписи, vol. II), p. 208–209; also numerous examples in И. БОЖИЛОВ, Българите във византийската империя, София 1995. 5 Among the Serbian nobility, for example Jovan Dragaš, Grgur Preljub, Jovan Uglješa; there are also the several royal names compounded with Stefan (although in at least some of the cases this might have been a name specifically assumed upon accession to the throne), like Stefan Radoslav, Stefan Vladislav, Stefan Uroš, and Stefan Dušan. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 269 are not found paired together in the same text very often, and the narrative sources tend to prioritize the secular / folk name elements6. In the rare cases where modern Russian historiography indicates the baptismal names, they are placed after the more familiar secular names, probably for convenience (for example, Vsevolod- Dmitrij instead of Dmitrij Vsevolod7). It might be noted, however, that double names do not seem to have been common among women of any class in medieval Bulgaria8, although they are attested in Kievan Rus’9. A rare and apparently late variation of Type 3 is a double name composed of two names both derived from Type 2. Among Bulgarian monarchs, this is attested in the cases of Ivan Stefan (1330–1331) and Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371). The first of these deviations can be explained by the desire to advertise the descent from the Serbian Nemanjid kings, each of whom had or assumed the name Stefan by itself or paired with another. The second deviation is perhaps best explained with the lasting fascination with Alexander the Great inherited from the Greco- Roman past, although by this time the name had acquired suitable Christian ante- cedents10. Double names with two Christian elements also occur in Russia, but

6 For example, see the Testament or Admonition (poučenie) of Vladimir II Monomah in the Russian Primary Chronicle, where he identifies himself as having being named Vasilij in baptism (and known) by the Russian name Vladimir (нареч(е)нѣмь въ кр(ь)щн(е)їи Василии, Русьскъıмь именемь Володи- миръ) [in:] Полное собрание русских летописей, vol. I, ed. Е. Ф. КАРСКИЙ, Ленинград 1926–1928, col. 240; The Russian Primary Chronicle, trans. S. H. Cross, Cambridge Mass. 1930 [= HSNPhL, 12], p. 301. On princely names in Kievan Rus’ see the voluminous study of А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени у русских князей в X–XVI вв., Москва 2006. 7 А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени…, p. 505. 8 The occasional designation of women by two names in Bulgarian historiography almost always indicates doubt as to the actual name due to contradiction or ambivalence in the sources: for example, Anna or Teodora (not Anna Teodora), a daughter of Ivan Asen II: see I. Mladjov, The Children of Ivan Asen II and Eirēnē Komnēnē, BMe 3, 2012, p. 485–486; Anna (not Anna Mária) of Hun- gary, a wife of Ivan Asen II: I. Mladjov, The Children…, p. 485; Ana of Serbia, renamed Domi- nica, meaning Neda (not Ana Neda), the mother of Ivan Stefan: I. Mladjov, The Bulgarian Prince and would-be Emperor Lodovico, BMe 2, 2011, p. 614–615; all three are treated as having double names in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е в средновековна България, 3София 2012, p. 40–43. Constructs like Kera Tamara and Kiraca Marija are not double names, but rather names preceded by forms of the Greek term kyra (lady): I. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 137; the treatment of these names in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 358–360, 364–365, is misleading; as for Keraca Petrica, p. 360, no source actually pairs these two terms: Petrica (Petrissa) comes from a papal letter (for which see Неиздадено писмо на папа Бенедикт XII до майката на цар Иван Александър, ed. and trans. И. ДУЙЧЕВ, ИБИД 14 / 15, 1937, p. 205–210), while Keraca is found in the Synodikon of Boril, ed. И. БОЖИЛОВ, А. ТОТОМАНОВА, И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Борилов Синодик, София 2010, p. 163, fol. 34а. 9 For example, А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени…, p. 495–496, 544–545, 591–592, 604. 10 For the Medieval Slavonic translations of the Alexander Romance, see Александрия русских хронографов, ed. В. М. ИСТРИН, Москва 1893; also Л. МИЛЕТИЧ, Една българска Александрия от 1810 год., София1936 [=БСт, 13]. 270 Ian S.R. Mladjov there, too, they represent a fairly rare and late development; they do not require special explanation in each case11. It should be emphasized that double names were not always used consistently, especially in non-official or semi-official contexts. An early example of this comes from the Bitola inscription of Ivan Vladislav (1015–1018), who is simply referred to by the first of the two names in that text12. Although the gold seal (chrysobull) and coin of Ivan Asen II (1218–1241) record the full double name, the two surviving charters issues by this monarch give only the second element in the signature13. A similar inconsistency can be seen with Ivan Asen II’s sons and successors, Kali- man Asen (1241–1246) and Mihail Asen (1246–1256), who appear with these official double names in some contemporary sources, but are referred simply by the first element of their double names elsewhere14. Whereas seals, coins, and charters of Konstantin Asen (1257–1277) give his official double name, some inscriptions and manuscript glosses do not, referring to him simply as emperor Konstantin instead15. Similarly, the second Georgi Terter

11 For example, А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени…, p. 487, 539, 550–551, 569. 12 For this inscription, see Битолски надпис на Иван Владислав самодържец български, ed. and trans. Й. ЗАИМОВ, В. ТЪПКОВА-ЗАИМОВА, София 1970; also Старобългарски надписи / Altbulgarischen Inschriften, vol. I, ed. K. Popkonstantinov, O. Kronsteiner, Wien 1994, p. 15–16. The relevant line reads (33): Iѡаном(ь) самодрьжъцемъ блъгарьско[мь]. 13 For Ivan Asen, see Й. ЮРУКОВА, В. ПЕНЧЕВ, Български средновековни печати и монети, София 1990, p. 52–53, 79–81: Iѡ(ань) Асѣн(ь) ц(а)р(ь) блъгаромъ и гръкомъ (coin) and Iѡ(ань) Асѣн(ь) ц(а)р(ь) (seal); for the simpler emperor Asen, see Грамоты болгарских царей, ed. Г. А. ИЛЬИНСКИЙ, Москва 1911, p. 13, № 1, and Грамоти на българските царе, ed. А. ДАСКАЛОВА, М. РАЙКОВА, София 2005, p. 29–30: Асѣн(ь) ц(а)р(ь) блъгаромъ и гръкомъ. Similarly in the more casual references, like the Stanimaka inscription of 1231, which also names him ц(а)р(ь) Асѣнь блъгаро- мь и гръкомь: Надписи, vol. II, p. 15, and the Kričim inscription, recording the visit of Асѣн(ь) царь: Надписи, vol. II, p. 85. See also Книжнина, vol. II, p. 38, 40, nos. 18, 20; The Voices of Medi- eval Bulgaria, Seventh-Fifteenth Century, trans. K. Petkov, Leiden 2008, p. 427, № 158, dates the Kričim inscription to 1254. The Synodikon of Boril, p. 156–160, fol. 30а–32б, uses both Ivan Asen and Asen by itself. 14 Kaliman Asen: Greek gloss in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 277, № 81: βασιλεύωντος ἐν τῆ Βουλγαρία Καλλιμάνου τοῦ Ἀσάν, υἱοῦ Ἰω(άννου) τοῦ Ἀσάν; but Поменици на българските царе и царици, ed. Й. ИВАНОВ, ИБИД 4, 1915 (cetera: Поменици), p. 226 has Калиманѹ бл(а)говѣрномѹ ц(а)рю; similarly for Mihail Asen: treaty with Dubrovnik from 1253, in Monumenta Serbica, ed. F. Miklos- ich, Wien 1858, p. 35, № 41, and И. БОЖИЛОВ, България и Дубровник, Договорът от 1253 г., София 2010, 120: цар самодрьжавьц вьсеи земле бльгарьске господин Михаилю Асѣню; but Поменици, p. 226: хр(и)столюбиваго ц(а)рѣ Михаила. The Batoševo inscription, however damaged, has both Mihail Asen and Mihail, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 278, № 83: [ц(а)рѣ Михаила Асѣ]нѣ and [Миха]илъ ц(а)рь. Geōrgios Akropolitēs [Georgii Acropolitae opera, § 39, vol. I, ed. A. Heisenberg, Leipzig 1903 (cetera: Geōrgios Akropolitēs, Annales)], names the brothers simply Καλιμᾶνος and Μιχαὴλ, as does the Synodikon of Boril, p. 161, fol. 32б: Калиманѹ бл(а)говѣрномѹ ц(а)рю и Михаилѹ братѹ его. 15 For Konstantin Asen, see the Virgina charter, Грамоты, p. 19, № 2, and Грамоти, p. 36: Кѡста(н) дин(ь) в х(рист)а б(ог)а вѣрень ц(а)рь и самодрьжець бльгаромь Асѣнь; seals and coinage, Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 271

(1322–1323) is recorded by that name on his gilded pectoral cross in the Vatopedi monastery and in the Synodikon of Boril; but in a contemporary manuscript gloss he is simply the great emperor Georgi, son of the great emperor Todor Svetoslav16. The inconsistency is naturally amply attested in narrative sources: for comparison, in writing about these Bulgarian monarchs, Iōannēs Kantakouzēnos gives only the second element of the name Todor Svetoslav, introduces his son as Georgi Terter, and later proceeds to call him only by the second element of his name17. The same trend can be found in the more plentiful attestations of the last medieval Bulgarian monarchs. The names of Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371) and his sons Ivan Sracimir (1356–1397) and Ivan Šišman (1371–1395) are all attested in their full double forms in the most official type of surviving documents, their charters18. However, they were also frequently reduced to their second and more characteristic element in other, less formal, or more constrained places19. We can conclude that double names (Type 3 above) were common, and perhaps prevalent in the anthroponymy of the ruling classes of the Second Bulgar- ian State. Moreover, the great inconsistency of usage indicates that even when we find an attestation of a single name, it does not preclude the possibility that it is only part of a fuller, double name for the same individual. Given the relative scarcity of surviving native source materials, we cannot expect that the full name would be traceable in the available documentation in every case. This relatively

Й. ЮРУКОВА, В. ПЕНЧЕВ, Български средновековни печати…, 54–57, 85–87: Кѡстандїн(ь) в х(рист)а б(ог)а вѣрен(ь) ц(а)р(ь) и самодрьжец(ь) бльгаромь Асѣн(ь); the Bojana inscription, Книжнина, vol. II, p. 54–55, № 25 and Надписи, vol. II, p. 31: Костаньдинѣ Асѣни; the Troica inscription, Надписи, vol. II, p. 147–148: ц(а)ри костанди[нѣ асѣ]ні; for the simpler emperor Konstantin, see another inscription from the Bojana church, Надписи, vol. II, p. 33: Кѡстаньт(и)н(ь) в х(рист)а б(ог) а вѣрень ц(а)рь и самодрьжець бльгаром(ь), and several glosses in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 64, № 27, from 1269 / 1270: ц(а)рѧ Костѧтина; p. 65, № 28, from 1272 / 1273: царю Константинѹ; p. 279, № 84, from 1276 / 1277: ц(а)ри Костадинѣ. 16 For the Vatopedi cross, see Надписи, vol. II, p. 19–20; for the Synodikon of Boril, p. 162, fol. 203б: Геѡргїю Тертерїю; for the manuscript gloss from 1322, see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 67, № 31: великыї ц(а)рь Геѡргїе с(ы)нь великаго ц(а)рѣ Ѳеѡд(о)ра Свѧт(о)слав(а). 17 Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri IV, vol. I, ed. L. Schopen, Bonn 1828 (cetera: Iōannēs Kantakouzēnos, Historiae), p. 169: Σφεντισθλάβος ὁ τῶν Μυσῶν βασιλεὺς […] διεδέξατο τὴν ἀρχὴν Μυσῶν ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Γεώργιος ὁ Τερτερής, but later (p. 170) simply ὁ Τερτερὴς. 18 For Ivan Aleksandăr, see Грамоты, p. 21–26, nos. 3 and 4 and Грамоти, p. 37–43: Iѡ(анъ) Алеѯандръ; for Ivan Sracimir, see Грамоты, p. 30, № 7 and Грамоти, p. 48: Iѡанъ Срацимирь; for Ivan Šišman, see Грамоты, p. 26–29, nos. 5 and 6 and Грамоти, p. 44–47: Iѡ(анъ) Шишмань. 19 Поменици, p. 222, 224; for Aleksandăr also see the gloss from the Loveč gospels, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 68–69, № 33: деспотѣ Алесандра, and the building inscription in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 285, № 90, from 1355: при ц(а)рѣ Александра; also the charter of Radu I of Wallachia in Нови влахо- български грамоти от Брашов, ed. Л. МИЛЕТИЧ, СНУНК 13, 1896, p. 47, № 2: царю Алеѯандре; for Sracimir see also the Zaječar funerary inscription of Georgi Hrăb, in Надписи, vol. II, p. 209: ц(а)ра Срацимира; for Šišman see also the Boženci or Urvič inscription of the sebastos Ognjan, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 289, № 98, and Надписи, vol. II, p. 155: Шишмана царѣ. 272 Ian S.R. Mladjov straightforward pattern of three types of personal names is complicated by a number of further assumptions, which have led to questionable usage in the treatment of several monarchs’ names.

II. Family Names? One such assumption is the implicit or explicit notion that family names were used in medieval Bulgaria. Distinct names of royal and aristocratic clans are amply attested during the pre-Christian period of the Bulgarian monarchy, most notably in the so-called Imennik (Nominalia) of Bulgarian rulers, which names the royal clans of Dulo, Ermi, Vokil, Ukil, and Ugain20. However, this very explicit attestation of family names, apparently carried over from the eastern origins of the Bulgar polity, seems to have disappeared some time after the conversion to Christianity. Although familial identity obviously retained its importance, it is not possible to discern clear native examples of Bulgarian family names in the period of the Second Bulgarian State21. Therefore, collective names like Asenids (Asenevci), Terters (Terterevci), and Šišmanids (Šišmanovci) are constructs that did not necessarily exist as such within medieval Bulgarian society. This is quite surprising, given earlier Bulgar usage and the widespread use of family names among some of medieval Bulgaria’s closest neighbors, including Byzantium and northern peoples like the Cumans and Pečenegs22.

20 For the parallel texts of the surviving manuscripts see С. СТОЯНОВ, Към четенето и тълкуване- то на някои места от именника на българските ханове, ЕЛ 26.4, 1971, p. 21–42, and in general М. МОСКОВ, Именник на българските ханове (ново тълкуване), София 1988. On the clan names, see A. Granberg, Observations on Bulgarian Clan Names in the 7th–9th Centuries, [in:] Civitas divino- humana: in honorem annorum LX Georgii Bakalov, ed. C. Stepanov, V. Va č ko va , София 2004, p. 551–561. 21 In addition to the obvious importance of Asenid descent in the succession of Bulgarian monarchs during the 13th and 14th centuries, we find occasional references to aristocratic lineages in the Byzantine sources, for example the description of the sebastokratōr Radoslav, the brother of Smilec (1292–1298), as belonging to the most illustrious family among the Bulgarians, in Georgii Pachymeris de Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecim, vol. II, ed. I. Bekker, Bonn 1835 (cetera: Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VII de Andronico Palaeologo), p. 266: γένους ὢν τοῦ πρωτίστου παρὰ Βουλγάροις. From an earlier period, we find Georgi Vojteh described as descended from the family of ‘kaukhans’ by the Continuator of Skylitzēs, p. 163: τῶν Κοπχάνων γένους καταγόμενος. 22 This curious dissimilarity between Byzantine and South Slavic practice is also noted by Д. ЏЕЛЕБЏИЋ, Словенски антропоними у судским актима Димитрија Хоматина, ЗРВИ 43, 2006, p. 483–499. More specifically on the development of Bulgarian family names see recently В. СУКАРЕВ, Наставката -ов / -ев и хронологията на българската родовоименна система, ГРИМП 6, 2009, p. 176–182. For Byzantine family names see for example A. Kazhdan, Names, [in:] ODB, vol. II, p. 1435–1436, and E. Patlagean, Les débuts d’une aristocratie byzantine et le témoignage de l’historiographie: système des noms et liens de parenté aux IXe–Xe siècles, [in:] The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries, ed. M. Angold, Oxford 1984, p. 23–42; for some examples of Cuman and Pečeneg names (including Terteroba and Basaraba), see I. Vásáry, Cumans Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 273

It was Byzantine society that produced, by analogy with its own practice, family names for the collective identification of Christian Bulgarian-descended aristocrats within the Byzantine state. An early example of this is the Aaronios family, which included the descendants of the Bulgarian emperor Ivan Vladislav (1015–1018) living within the Byzantine Empire, and was named after his father Aaron23. By the same token, after the former Bulgarian emperor Mico Asen (1256–1257) and his descendants established themselves in Byzantium, the name Asan (sometimes Hellenized even further as Asanēs) came to be applied to that family24. The same dynamic can be observed in several other cases, for example the Byzantine family Kalamanos, descended from the Hungarian king Kálmán (1095–1116)25. Such external evidence and the natural application of such constructs to medieval families in modern historiography notwithstanding, we should be wary of identifying any of the names of medieval Bulgarian monarchs as family names. This is not to say that inherited or assumed names such asAsen and Terter did not denote a genuine or claimed place within an illustrious lineage, something they clearly did, as blatantly demonstrated by the assumption of the name Asen by the non-Asenid emperors Mico and Konstantin in the mid-1250s, in both cases to advertise legitimate succession by marriage26. In the case of Mico’s son Ivan Asen III (1279–1280), we are told explicitly that he assumed the additional name Asen when he was put forth as a candidate for the Bulgarian throne by the Byz- antine emperor Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos in 127827. Such names clearly served as genealogical and political markers, but without being Byzantine- or modern-type family names. and Tartars, Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365, Cambridge 2005, p. 65–66, 151; В. СТОЯНОВ, Куманите в българската история, ИПр 61.5 / 6, 2005, p. 3–25; К. КРЪСТЕВ, Българското царство при династията на Тертеревци, Пловдив 2011, p. 221–223. 23 See A. Kazhdan, Aaronios, [in:] ODB, vol. I, p. 1–2; В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. II, p. 127–137; И. БОЖИЛОВ, Българите…, p. 236–254. 24 See A. Kazhdan, Asan, [in:] ODB, vol. I, p. 202; И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, especially part II. 25 See A. Kazhdan, Kalamanos, [in:] ODB, vol. II, p. 1091. 26 On Mico, see П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения…, p. 51–56; for his claim to the throne, see for example Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler, V. Laurent, Paris 1984, p. 449 (cetera: Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo): And Mytzēs… was a son-in-law of Asan… and after his death he assumed the rule over the Bulgarians (Ὁ δὲ Μυτζῆς… γαμβρὸς μὲν ἧν ἐπὶ θυγατρὶ τῷ Ἀσάν… Ὡς γοῦν ἐκεῖνος ἐτελεύτα καὶ οὗτος τὴν ἀρχὴν διεδέχετο τῶν Βουλγάρων); for Konstantin’s claim, see p. 451: But since he did not have a claim to authority through his own family, because he was not related to Asan, he took his granddaughter to wife… and thus ob- tained the same right to Asen’s empire as Mytzēs (Ὅσον οὖν ἐνέλιπέν οἱ πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκ σφετέρου γένους, μηδὲν τῷ Ἀσὰν προσήκων, τὴν ἐκείνου ἐκγόνην λαβὼν εἰς γυναῖκα… ἐπ’ ἴσων εἶχε τὸ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ Ἀσὰν βασιλείαν δίκαιον τῷ Μυτζῇ). 27 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 557: Mikhaēl VIII, having changed his apparel, called him his son-in-law and the emperor of the Bulgarians. And he gave him the name of his grandfather Asan (καὶ μετασχηματίσας γαμβρὸν ἐκάλει καὶ βασιλέα Βουλγάρων. Μετετίθει δὲ καὶ τοῦτον εἰς τὸ τοῦ πάππου Ἀσάν). 274 Ian S.R. Mladjov

An instructive case is the addition of the name Asen to that of Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371) in a Constantinopolitan patriarchal document confirming the alliance between the Bulgarian and Byzantine emperors through the impending marriage of their children in 135528. Here Asen is clearly used as a family name ascribed to the Bulgarian ruler in addition to his personal double name, but this is done in a document issued at Constantinople and in Greek. That the Bulgarian monarch was given the family name Asen in this source has as much to do with its Byzantine origin as with the Asenid descent of Ivan Aleksandăr. This usage, however, is apparently exceptional. As if to underscore the lack of consistency, a second document from the same source and year refers to the same Bulgarian monarch by adding the family name Asen again, but this time omitting Aleksandăr29. Even if we might say that the addition of the name Asen to that of Ivan Aleksandăr in a Byzan- tine source seems to reflect its interpretation as a family name, this does not seem to occur in Bulgarian sources. In those rare cases where Ivan Aleksandăr’s Asenid descent was advertised through his name in Bulgaria, the name Asen seems to have simply replaced Aleksandăr30. Therefore, we may conclude that whereas descendants of the original imperial lineage of the Second Bulgarian State were conscious of their membership in what we may call the Asenid Dynasty (or the House of Asen), this was signaled with the addition of genuine family names only in Byzantine sources, whose writers expected and therefore anticipated the use of family names by analogy with their own social practices. But in native Bulgarian practice a name compounded with Asen, or for that matter with Terter, Šišman, and Sracimir, should be understood as a double name. That it commemorates an honored ancestor or advertises connection to an illustrious lineage is a related but slightly different matter31.

28 Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vol. I, ed. F. Miklosich, J. Müller, Wien 1860, p. 432, № 185: καὶ τοῦ (ὑψηλοτάτου) βασιλέως τῶν Βουλγάρων κῦρ Ἰωάννου Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Ἀσάνη. See also И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 443. 29 Acta et diplomata 1, п. 439, № 186: ὑψηλότατον βασιλέα τῶν Βουλγάρων κῦρ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ἀσάνη. Accordingly, a Slavic 15th-century translation of the document rendered this as ц(а)рю болгарьскомѹ… Iѡаннѹ Асѣню: Грамота патриарха Калиста как новый источник истории болгарской церкви, ed. С. ПАЛАУЗОВ, Санкт Петербург 1858, p. 20. 30 Ivan Aleksandăr is called Ivan Asen in the dating formula of an inscription from am 6840 (ad 1331 / 1332) in the church of Saint Nicholas in Staničene near Pirot, for which see С. ГАБЕЛИЋ, Прилог познавања живописа цркве „Св. Никола” в Станичења, Зог 18, 1987, p. 22–36; М. ПОПОВИЋ, С. ГАБЕЛИЋ, Б. ЦВЕТКОВИЋ, Б. ПОПОВИЋ, Црква светог Николе у Станичењу, Београд 2005; И. БОЖИЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на средновековна България VII–XIV век, София 2006, p. 586: въ дни благовернаго ц(а)рѣ Iѡ(а)на Асѣнѣ и при г(оспо)д(и)не Бѣ[лаѹре]. For other possible attestations of Ivan Aleksandăr as Ivan Asen at Ivanovo and Berende, see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 443–445. 31 While I agree with Н. КОВАЧЕВ, Двойни лични имена…, p. 369, that names compounded with Asen indicated real or claimed membership in the family, I disagree with his contention that such names should not be considered double names. Zlatarski did not consider the implications of double names, but he did note some problems with the usage of Asenids to designate the first monarchs Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 275

III. Patronymics? Another potential interpretation of the second elements in double names is that they serve as patronymics, reflecting the name of the individual’s father. The use of patronymics in various forms stretches at least as far back as Classical Antiq- uity, and patronymics were, and remain, the chief way of distinguishing between numerous like-named Rjurikid princes in Kievan Rus’ and medieval Russia32. Patronymics also became increasingly widespread in the medieval western Bal- kans, and are first attested in large quantity in documents reflecting the relations between Dubrovnik and neighboring rulers33. In modern times patronymics have taken the place of middle names in Russia and Bulgaria, and many family (last) names are derived from the patronymic employed by an earlier generation34. How- ever, while medieval Bulgarian monarchs, nobles, and commoners alike were fully capable of indicating their parentage35, did they use patronymics? A plausible example of this can be found in the treatment of the aforementioned ruler Konstantin Asen (1257–1277) in the Byzantine sources, where the name Konstantin is associated with another, Tih (Toikhos / Teikhos). This has led to the conventional naming of this monarch as Konstantin Tih, but it has long been recognized that, as specified by Geōrgios Akropolitēs, this is to be understood as Konstantin, the son of Tih36. Therefore, here we are not dealing with (1) a personal of the Second Bulgarian State: В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, Второ българско царсвто. България при Асеневци (1187–1280), София 1940, p. 94, n. 1. On the programmatic use of names, see also И. ЛАЗАРОВ, Владетелското име „Йоан” и култът към св. Йоан Рилски в държавно- политическата идеология на второто българско царство, [in:] Светогорска обител Зограф, vol. III, ed. В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, София 1999, p. 90–98. 32 So, for example, Svjatoslav I of Kiev is Svjatoslav Igorevič, Svjatoslav II is Svjatoslav Jaroslavič, Svjatoslav III is Svjatoslav Vsevolodovič, etc. Patronymics were also widely used in the Scandinavian countries (e.g., Harald I of Norway is Harald Halvdansson, Harald II is Harald Eiriksson, Harald III is Harald Sigurdsson, etc.) and in northern Iberia and the Languedoc (e.g., the alternating names of the kings of Navarre in the 10th–11th century: Sancho I Garcés, García I Sánches, Sancho II Garcés, García II Sánches, Sancho III Garcés, García III Sánchez, and Sancho IV Garcés, each the son of the preceding). 33 For example, Monumenta Serbica, p. 8, № 11, including patronymics like Pečenežić (Печенѣжикь), Radoslavić (Радосьлавикь), Sočibabić (Сочибабикь), Pikularević (Пикларевикь), Boleslavić (Болесьлавикь), Rastić (Растикь), Tihoslavić (Тихосьлавикь), and Grgurević (Грьгровикь) as early as the 12th century. 34 Perhaps most famously the Romanovs, descended from the boyar Roman Jur’evič Zahar’in. 35 For simple filiation, see the Tărnovo inscription of Ivan Asen II, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 38, № 19, and Надписи, vol. II, p. 167: Iѡ(анъ) Асѣн(ъ)… с(ы)нь стараго Асѣнѣ; see note 16 above on Georgi Terter II as the son of Todor Svetoslav; for the Šumen inscription of Ivan Šišman, see Надписи, vol. II, p. 135: Iѡ[ан] Шиш[мань сынъ] великаго ц(а)рѣ Iѡана Але[ксандра]; for non-royals, see Надписи, vol. II, p. 38, 59. 36 Geōrgios Akropolitēs, Annales, § 73: Toikhos’ son Kōnstantinos: τοῦ Τοίχου υἱὸν Κωνσταντῖνον; Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 59: Κωνσταντίνῳ τῷ Τείχῳ. Nikēphoros Grēgoras [Nicephori Gregorae historiae Byzantinae, vol. I, 1, ed. I. Bekker, L. Schopen, Bonn 1829, 276 Ian S.R. Mladjov name followed by a family name, or (2) a double name, or (3) a name and an epithet, but rather with the name Konstantin followed by the name Tih (func- tioning as a patronymic), apparently an abbreviation for a name like Tihomir37. However, it should be pointed out that in this case the use of the patronymic is found in a foreign, not a Bulgarian source38. In the native sources, this monarch is invariably given the double name Konstantin Asen or is labeled more simply and less formally as Konstantin (often in a variation approaching the demotic form Kostadin)39. The frequently encountered historiographical variation, Konstantin Tih Asen, is a technically inaccurate modern construct40. A similar problem involves the designation Mihail III Šišman (1323–1330), which has become fairly common in modern Bulgarian and foreign historiogra- phy41. The official name employed by this Bulgarian monarch was Mihail Asen, as documented in both Bulgarian and Byzantine sources42. While many sources p. 61 (cetera: Nikēphoros Grēgoras, Historia Romana)], refers to him as Kōnstantinos by name, Toikhos by surname (Κωνσταντῖνος ὄνομα, Τοῖχος ἐπώνυμον); then, at p. 61 and 63, Κωνσταντῖνος ὁ Τοῖχος. 37 K. Jireček, Geschichte der Bulgaren, Praha 1876, p. 269–270 (repeatedly translated and repub- lished with various additions and emendations based on the author, most recently as История на българите, София 1978, p. 315); В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 474; nevertheless the mistaken notion that Toikhos / Teikhos is a Greek rendering of the Bulgarian adjective тих (quiet) continues to appear in scholarship: see for example R. Macrides, George Akropolites: The History, Oxford 2007, p. 335, n. 5. 38 For a different treatment of this issue, see С. ПИРИВАТРИЋ, Једна претпоставка о пореклу бугарског цара Константина Асена „Тиха”, ЗРВИ 46, 2009, p. 313–331. Pirivatrić advances an interesting hypothesis that Konstantin was descended from the Serbian grand župan Tihomir (1166–1167), a brother and predecessor of Stefan Nemanja, and was thus Serbian on his father’s side, not literally a grandson or even lineal descendant of Stefan Nemanja as claimed in his Virgina Charter (Грамоты, p. 15, № 2), Грамоти, p. 31: с(вѧ)таго Симеѡна Неманѧ дѣда ц(а)рс(т)в ми), and that Konstantin’s possible father or uncle Ivan Tihomir of Skopje did not carry a double-element name but a patronymic (Ivan, son of Tihomir), which would make Tih a sort of family name when used for Konstantin himself. The onomastic implications of this study seem problematic, and it remains more plausible to infer that the Byzantine writers would have identified Konstantin with his father’s name rather than with that of some more distant and surely obscure ancestor. 39 See above, an. 15. 40 For example, in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 396–400. 41 To their credit, neither K. Jireček, Geschichte…, nor А. БУРМОВ, История на България през времето на Шишмановци (1323–1396 г.), ГСУ.ИФФ 43, 1947, p. 1–56 and 1–20 (cited here as published in IDEM, Избрани произведения, vol. I, София 1968, p. 220–278), use this rather misleading designation. 42 A Gloss to the Sredec Gospels from 1328 / 1329, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 68, № 32: при ц(а)ри михаилѣ асѣни; Actes de l’Athos 4: Actes de Zographou, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. Korablev, ВВ 13: app. 1, Санкт-Петербург 1907, p. 48–52, 58–61, nos. A.22, A.23, and A.26: ὁ ὑψηλότατος βασιλεὺς τῶν Βουλγάρων καὶ περιπόθητος υἱός (καὶ γαμβρὸς) τῆς βασιλείας μου κῦρ Μιχαὴλ ὁ Ἀσάνης. See also И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 445–446. This official name also seems to be indicated in at least one of his coin types, for which see Й. ЮРУКОВА, В. ПЕНЧЕВ, Български средновековни печати…, p. 109–123; note, however, the reascription of some of these coin types by С. АВДЕВ, Българските Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 277 simply refer to him as emperor Mihail, that is obviously a more casual usage43. Yet no contemporary source names this monarch Mihail Šišman44. The modern construct Mihail Šišman seems to derive from a Serbian charter, which refers to him as Mihail’ Šiš’manik’. But the modern Serbian form of this would be Mihailo Šišmanić, and the Bulgarian, Mihail Šišmanov. Here we are not dealing with a double name or a first name followed by a family name, but with a single name followed by a patronymic, signifying Mihail, the son of Šišman45. While this monarch was certainly the son of Šišman, and might have been referred to by a patronymic (though not one attested in native Bulgarian sources), it would be more accurate to refer to him by the name Mihail Asen, a name he shares with several other monarchs, rather than the completely unattested form Mihail Šišman. As with the attempt to discern the use of family names in the Second Bulgar- ian State, the use of patronymics also proves elusive. While they would be less

средновековни монети, София 2007, p. 127–141. Note also that Mihail Asen III’s nephew Ivan Aleksandăr apparently named his own eldest son Mihail Asen, born during this reign, after his uncle: И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 192–197, № I 39, and a gloss in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 68–69, № 33: при … деспотѣ Алесандра и при с(ы)нѣ его Михаил(ъ) Асѣн(ъ); whether Ivan Aleksandăr’s brother Mihail also bore the double name Mihail Asen remains unclear; for him see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 184, № I 35, and the Jambol inscription from 1356, in Надписи, vol. II, p. 70–71. 43 For example, some coin types (see preceding note); Iōannēs Kantakouzēnos, Historiae, vol. I, p. 207, 294, 323, 340: ὁ τῶν Μυσῶν βασιλεὺς Μιχαὴλ; Danilo II, Life of Dečanski, [in:] Животи краљева и архиепископа српских, ed. Ђ. ДАНИЧИЋ, Zagreb 1866, p. 174, 178, 189: цара бльгарьска- аго Михаила; the Synodikon of Boril, p. 162, fol. 203б: Михаил бл(а)гочьстиваго ц(а)р (oddly, since the same text provides the full double names of his predecessor and successor). Note, moreover, that this Mihail Asen III had, among his sons by Ana of Serbia, a despotēs Mihail, for whom see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 144–148, № I 31; if this prince did not bear a double name, that would preclude his father being named simply Mihail. The prince Mihail could, theoretically, be identified with other sons of Mihail Asen III and Ana of Serbia: possibly with the prince later known as Lodovico in Italy (who cannot be identical with Ivan Stefan or Šišman, for which see I. Mladjov, The Bulgarian Prince…, p. 609–610), or possibly with Šišman, in which case we might have a real double name Mihail Šišman, but pertaining to the son rather than to the father. For Šišman and Lodovico, see also И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 142–144 (№ I 30), 148–149 (№ I 32). 44 Avdev has demonstrated that the trident-shaped coin monogram previously interpreted as the name Šišman, is in fact a variation of the monogram for emperor, possibly influenced by contemporary tamga usage in the Golden Horde, and that it has nothing to do with the name Mihail Šišman: С. АВДЕВ, Българските средновековни монети…, p. 155–160. 45 Dečani charter of Stefan Uroš III, in Monumenta Serbica, p. 100, № 83: царь бльгарьскыи Михаиль Шишьманикь, also appearing further simply as цара Михаила. We cannot take seriously the state- ment that all (sic!) rulers of Vidin were named Šišman (Cysmani) in the Anonymous Description of Eastern Europe from 1308, Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis, § 84, ed. O. Górka, Kraków 1916, p. 38: Imperatores autem eiusdem imperii [omnes] uocantur cysmani. Note also that all (omnes) is supplied, and that the rest of the passage contains so much confusion, that its testimony cannot be accepted at face value. Besides, it is not certain that at this point (1308) Šišman was already dead and that his son Mihail Asen had already succeeded him. 278 Ian S.R. Mladjov surprising to find, they only seem to occur in foreign sources46. The available evidence continues to indicate that names found in pairs in medieval Bulgarian texts are most likely to be interpreted as double names.

IV. Double Names as Genealogical Indicators Although family names and patronymics do not seem detectable in the surviving Bulgarian sources from the period under consideration, the plentiful, perhaps typical double names could be said to fulfill some of the functions of these otherwise absent onomastic forms. To begin with, names were assigned in accordance with longstanding social and cultural traditions. The most obvious of these are papponymy and theionymy – naming boys after their grandfather or uncle – and similarly with girls, after their grandmothers and aunts. Conversely, there seems to have been great aversion to naming a child after a living parent47. The rare exceptions to this rule have to be explained away, perhaps through special cir- cumstances like posthumous birth, illegitimate parentage, or later name change48. The combinations of single and double names (or the variations within double names) help explain seeming contradictions to these basic rules. Father and sons, or brothers, could thus share the same baptismal name, provided that the secular name paired with it differentiated between them: thus Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371) had four sons named respectively Ivan Sracimir, Ivan Asen (d. 1349), Ivan Šišman, and another Ivan Asen (b. after 1349); moreover, Ivan Aleksandăr also had a brother named Ivan (secular name, if any, unknown), who adopted the family names Komnēnos and Asanēs in Byzantine style while ruling Valona and Kanina in Albania49. The names of Ivan Aleksandăr’s sons provide a convenient demonstration of the double name model. Although each of their respective secular names (Asen,

46 The funerary inscription of Ostoja Rajaković, a kinsman of the Serbian king Marko (1371–1395) and son-in-law of the Albanian župan Gropa, who died at Ohrid in 1379, included in Надписи, vol. II, p. 98, cannot be used as support for the use of patronymics in medieval Bulgaria. A Genoese document referring to Ivanko, the son of Dobrotica, uses a patronymic to express the filiation, but it is a foreign source in a foreign language: И. БОЖИЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на Добруджа, vol. II, Велико Търново 2004, Excursus 2, p. 425, № 42: Juancho Dobroticie. 47 In early medieval Russia the determination to avoid naming a child after any living close relative often got in the way of papponymy or theionymy, at least as long as grandfathers and uncles remained alive: А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени…, p. 11–30. 48 For an illegitimate son being named after his father, consider the Epirote rulers Mikhaēl I and Mikhaēl II, on whom see D. Polemis, The Doukai, London 1968, p. 91–92. nos. 45, p. 93–94, and 48; for a son assuming the name of his father after the latter’s death, consider Mikhaēl II’s legitimate son, the despotēs Dēmētrios, who began calling himself Mikhaēl in honor of his father: ibidem, p. 96, № 51. 49 For him see A. Soloviev, Un beau-frère du tsar Douchan, RIEB 1, 1934 / 1935, p. 180–187, and И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 178–184, № I 34. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 279

Sracimir, Šišman) served as a genealogical marker associating them with illustrious ancestors and their respective lineages, none of these secular names were shared by their father50. Therefore, none of these names served as a simple patronymic, and none of them constitutes a Byzantine- or modern-type family name. The same type of basic analysis confirms the names of Todor Svetoslav (1299–1322), Ivan Stefan (1330–1331), and Ivan Aleksandăr himself as double names. The names of Ivan Asen, Kaliman Asen, Mihail Asen, Konstantin Asen, and Georgi Terter fall within the same typology, but issues related to some of their bearers merit further discussion.

IVa. Names associated with the House of Terter (Table 2) Let us begin with the name Georgi Terter (or, more accurately, Georgi Terterij). The bearers of this name are often called Georgi I Terter (1280–1292) and Georgi II Terter (1322–1323) in modern Bulgarian historiography, but this is technically inaccurate51. At first glanceGeorgi Terter could be interpreted as (1) a given name followed by a family name, (2) a given name followed by a patronymic, or (3) a double name composed of the typical pairing of a Christian baptismal name and a secular name derived from a folk tradition. It is fairly clear that the element Terter reflects the attested Cuman clan name Terteroba52. It is also theoretically conceivable that it might reflect the name of the earlier monarch’s father (thereby serving as a patronymic). Nevertheless, the third option, that we are dealing with a double name, remains the most likely. While we do not have any clear attestation of the name of the first ruler’s father53, we know that his grandson was also named Georgi Terter54, and that he certainly had no Terter as his father. Therefore, at least in the case of the second Georgi Terter, we are clearly dealing with a double name. Given the widespread practice of papponymy (and the apparent absence of real

50 Excluding the obviously propagandistic casting of Ivan Aleksandăr as Ivan Asen in a few contexts discussed above. 51 See for example Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 143–149; И. БОЖИЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на средновековна България…, p. 529–540, 554–556; К. КРЪСТЕВ, Българско- то царство…, especially p. 222–227. 52 К. КРЪСТЕВ, Българското царство…, p. 221–223; see also O. Pritsak, The Polovcians and Rus’, AEMA 2, 1975, p. 373, 375–376; П. ПАВЛОВ, По въпроса за заселвания на кумани в Бъл- гария през XIII в., [in:] Втори международен конгрес по българистика, София 23 май – 3 юни 1986 г. Доклади, т. VI, Българските земи в Древността. България през Средновековието, ed. М. Йotoba, София 1987, p. 633–634; idem, Куманите в обществено-политическия живот на средновековна България (1186 г. – началото на XIV в.), ИП 46.7, 1990, p. 23. 53 A certain Arslan Terter, who could have been the father or grandfather of Georgi Terter, is said to have served as Bulgarian emissary to Volga Bulgaria sometime before 1246, according to a surviving excerpt from the controversial БАХШИ ИМАН, Джагфар тарихы, vol. III, Оренбург 1997, p. 102. 54 The Synodikon of Boril, p. 162, fol. 203б, gives both rulers the same names, distinguishing the grandfather with the epithet the elder: Геѡргїю Тертерїю старом. 280 Ian S.R. Mladjov family names or patronymics in medieval Bulgaria), it is reasonable to conclude that the same is true for the grandfather, whose name was applied to the grandson. In that case, it would be best to refer to these monarchs as Georgi Terter I and Georgi Terter II55. Even interpreted as a double name, Georgi Terter clearly functions as a genealogical marker referencing the Cuman clan Terteroba. This is especially clear in the case of Georgi Terter I, who is described as a Cuman in the Byzantine sources56. In the case of Georgi Terter II this might still be true, but perhaps only indirectly: his naming was predicated upon reproducing the name of his grandfather. At least one more member of the Bulgarian aristocracy bore the name Terter: a son of the despotēs Dobrotica of Karvuna, who governed Drăstăr (Silistra) in the 1370s and 1380s57. It is still debated whether or not this Terter bore the double name Ivan Terter, and whether he is identical to the Ivan (Ivanko), who succeeded his father Dobrotica as ruler of Karvuna in 138558. The name has been seen as sufficient evidence for inferring that Dobrotica and his family belonged to a branch of the House of Terter59. This is probable enough, although theoretically the name could have passed into this family through a matrilineal connection. The names of Dobrotica’s brother Todor, and of his other brother Balik’s probable son Georgi would also fit within the known onomastic repertoire of the House of Terter60. An obscure despotēs named Kuman has also been tentatively associated with this family61. We are on firmer grounds with the despotēs Aldimir (Eltimir), a brother

55 As already done by K. Jireček, Geschichte…, p. 279–280, 289 (idem, История…, p. 325–326, 337–338); compare I. Vásáry, Cumans and Tatars…, p. 86. 56 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VII de Andronico Palaeologo, p. 265: ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ Τερτερῆς ἐκ Κομάνων ἦν, indicating at least paternal Cuman descent. 57 On this Terter, see Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 676; Г. АТАНАСОВ, Добруджанското деспотство, Велико Търново 2009, p. 133–149; В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита от българската история, vol. I, София 2007, p. 343–355. 58 I. Biliarsky, The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria, BBg 9, 1995, p. 157–160; idem, Институции- те…, p. 79–84; idem, Деспот Йоан Тертер (40-те – 90-те години XIV столетие), ИП 48 / 10, 1992, p. 3–23; idem, Пак за добруджанските Тертеровци, ИП 49.3, 1993, p. 143–147; И. БОЖИ- ЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на Добруджа.., vol. II, p. 234, 240; Г. АТАНАСОВ, Добруджанското дес- потство…, p. 153–161. 59 I. Biliarsky, The Despots.., p. 155; idem, Институциите…, p. 74; И. БОЖИЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на Добруджа…, p. 223; Г. АТАНАСОВ, Добруджанското деспотство…, p. 113. 60 For the brothers Balik, Todor, and Dobrotica, see Iōannēs Kantakouzēnos, Historiae, vol. II, p. 584: πρὸς Μπαλίκαν τινὰ τοῦ Καρβωνᾶ ἄρχοντα πέμψασα πρεσβείαν ἐδεῖτο βοηθεῖν. ὁ δὲ ἀσμένως τε ἐδέξατο τὴν πρεσβείαν καὶ Θεόδωρον καὶ Τομπροτίτζαν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς; for Georgi see the damaged inscription from Aksakovo in И. БОЖИЛОВ, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на Добруджа…, p. 228 and 392 (Excursus 2 № 5): Γεώρ[γιος…] τού Μπαλί[κα…] τού Καρβου[νᾶ]. 61 В. ИГНАТОВ, Към историята на Карвунската средновековна област (XIII–XIV век), Доб 4, 1987, p. 20. But note the objections of И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Пак за добруджанските Тертеровци… The despotēs Kuman is attested only in the Bojana and Poganovo memorial lists; for him see idem, The Despots…, p. 149, and idem, Институциите…, p. 55–56. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 281 of Georgi Terter I, who married Marija, a daughter of Smilec (1292–1298), and left behind a son named Ivan Dragušin, who died in Serbian Macedonia before 134062. Whether Adimir had any other issue, and whether he was related to other bearers of that name remains impossible to determine with certainty63. The name of Todor Svetoslav (1299–1322), the son of Georgi Terter I and the father of Georgi Terter II, could also serve as a genealogical marker. It is possible, but not verifiable, that at least one element of his double name reflected that of his paternal grandfather, the unnamed father of Georgi Terter I. The nameSvetoslav , however, is found in a medieval Bulgarian context extremely rarely: apart from Todor Svetoslav, there is only the Russian-descended despotēs Jakov Svetoslav (d. 1276)64, not counting the Kievan ruler Svjatoslav I Igorevič (945–972), who had invaded Bulgaria in the 960s. Given the rarity of the name Svetoslav in Bulgaria and its ample use among the Rjurikid princes, Plamen Pavlov has proposed that Todor Svetoslav’s mother Marija was the daughter of Jakov Svetoslav by his wife, an unnamed granddaughter of Ivan Asen II65. Although this theory is based on circumstantial considerations, the case for it is actually very strong. When Ivan Asen III (1279–1280) was accepted as emperor in Tărnovo, the leading member of the Bulgarian aristocracy was the stratēgos Georgi Terter, to whom the Bulgarian people was much devoted, and whom it exalted66. To safeguard the position of his son-in-law Ivan Asen III, the Byzantine emperor Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos (1259–1282) arranged for Georgi Terter’s divorce from his wife Marija and his marriage to kira Marija, the sister of Ivan Asen III. Georgi Terter was accordingly promoted to despotēs, while his first wife Marija and their son Todor Svetoslav were exiled to Nicaea. But Georgi Terter plotted against his new brother-in-law, and Ivan Asen III and his wife fled

62 Х. МАТАНОВ, Нови сведения…; И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 56–59; IDEM, The Despots…, p. 150; Г. АТАНАСОВ, Севастократори и деспоти в средновековна България, [in:] ТКШ, vol. VII, p. 470–471, proposes identifying Aldimir with the otherwise unknown despotēs Kuman. On Aldimir and Ivan Dragušin, see also Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 20–22, 268–270. 63 An Aldimir, son of the general Vitomir, is named as the deceased in a funerary inscription from Bojana: Надписи, vol. II, p. 38. Another Aldimir was the recipient of letters from Ivan Šišman: K. Ivanova, Un renseignement nouveau dans un manuscript bulgare du XIVe siècle au sujet de la résis- tance du tsar Ivan Šišman contre les Ottomans pres de Nikopol, EB 24.1, 1988, p. 91. For both, see also Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 22–23. 64 On him, see П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения…, p. 114–189; В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 498–543; Б. ФЕРЈАНЧИЋ, Деспоти у Византији и Јужнословенским земљама, Београд 1960, p. 143; I. Biliarsky, The Despots…, p. 147–148; idem, Институциите…, p. 51–53; Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 711–713. 65 П. ПАВЛОВ, Търновските царици, Велико Търново 2006, p. 32–33; citing chronological considerations, В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 321–322, proposes Jakov Svetoslav as the brother of Todor Svetoslav’s mother Marija. For the name Svjatoslav in Rjurikid Russia as virtually limited to members of the Rjurikid dynasty: А. Ф. ЛИТВИНА, Ф. Б. УСПЕНСКИЙ, Выбор имени…, p. 43. 66 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 567: Ἦν δ’ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα τῶν προὐχόντων καὶ Τερτερῆς, ᾧ δὴ καὶ μεγάλως τὸ Βουλγαρικὸν προσεῖχε καὶ παρ’ ἐκείνοις ἐμεγαλίζετο. 282 Ian S.R. Mladjov to Byzantium; the Bulgarians enthroned Georgi Terter as emperor67. Sometime later Georgi Terter successfully requested the return of his original wife from the new Byzantine emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1282–1328), having separated from Ivan Asen III’s sister. Pakhymerēs thought that Georgi Terter did so because he was excommunicated by the church on account of divorcing his first wife68. Almost two decades later, Todor Svetoslav (1299–1322) seems to have based his claim to the Bulgarian throne on his maternal descent69. This is the gist of the information supplied by the sources about Todor Svetoslav’s mother Marija. Three points deserve special attention: (1) Georgi Terter I divorced his Asenid wife kira Marija to remarry his original wife Marija; (2) Todor Svetoslav derived his legitimacy from his Bulgarian descent through his mother Marija; (3) Georgi Terter was already considered the most preeminent member of the Bulgarian aristocracy before his marriage to Ivan Asen III’s sister. Bulgarian descent by itself could hardly have been the qualification for the throne, especially since Todor Svetoslav was a monarch’s son. Besides, there is an implication that Georgi Terter I, being a Cuman, was qualified for the throne through his marriage. Normally this legitimacy is seen as derived from Georgi Terter’s marriage to kira Marija, the sister of Ivan Asen III. But this marriage seems to have been expedient only during the reign of Ivan Asen III; the readiness with which Georgi Terter discarded this Asenid wife and reclaimed the first Marija suggests that his original wife was no less politically valuable. While possible romantic attachment and implied ecclesiastical pressure might have played some part in Georgi Terter’s decision, Marija seems to have provided him with as much claim to the throne as kira Marija; to do that, Todor Svetoslav’s mother would have had to carry Asenid blood too. All this would make sense if the first Marija was the daughter of the despotēs Jakov Svetoslav by an Asenid-descended wife, and if Todor Svetoslav received his secular name in honor of his maternal grandfather. Jakov Svetoslav’s prominence was at least partly due to his marriage in 1261 to a daughter of the Byzantine emperor of Nikaia Theodōros II Doukas Laskaris (1254–1258) and his wife Elena,

67 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 567, 569. Whether it was Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos or Ivan Asen III who made Georgi Terter a despotēs is disputed, although Nikēphoros Grēgoras, Historia Romana, vol. I, p. 133, explicitly states that it was Ivan Asen III who did so. See also Б. ФЕРЈАНЧИЋ, Деспоти…, p. 144–145; I. Biliarsky, The Despots…, p. 148–149, and IDEM, Институциите…, p. 54–55, who nevertheless attribute this promotion to Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos. But we can interpret the evidence as Ivan Asen III implementing policies agreed upon with Mikhaēl VIII; compare И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 253–254, n. 25, and Г. АТАНАСОВ, Севастократори и деспоти…, p. 470. 68 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VII de Andronico Palaeologo, p. 57. 69 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VII de Andronico Palaeologo, p. 265: Ὀσφεντίσθλαβος, Βούλγαρος ὢν ἐκ μητρὸς. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 283 herself the daughter of Ivan Asen II70. It is probable that Jakov Svetoslav was grant- ed the title of despotēs precisely because he had become the brother-in-law of the Bulgarian emperor Konstantin Asen (1257–1277), himself the husband of Eirēnē Doukaina Laskarina, another daughter of Theodōros II and Elena71. After Eirēnē’s death in 1269, presumably because he became the only man in Bulgaria married to a princess of Asenid descent, Jakov Svetoslav assumed the title of Bulgarian emperor72. This claim eventually led to Jakov Svetoslav’s adoptionand subsequent murder in 1276 by Konstantin Asen’s new empress, Maria Kantakouzēnē73. It is therefore plausible to infer a connection between Jakov Svetoslav and Todor Svetoslav’s mother Marija. If Jakov Svetoslav and his anonymous wife74 were the parents of Marija, we would have an explanation for the appearance of her husband Georgi Terter at the forefront of the Bulgarian elite in the late 1270s, for his legitimation as Bulgarian emperor even after discarding the sister of Ivan Asen III, for the unusual name of Todor Svetoslav, and for his claim to the throne on the basis of his maternal Bulgarian descent75. We would also find a good explanation of the inclusion of the despotēs Jakov Svetoslav in the memorial lists of Bulgarian

70 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 243. As Todor Svetoslav’s maternal great-grandfather, Theodōros II of Nicaea could provide the rationale for the baptismal name Todor. 71 Jakov Svetoslav is not yet named as despotēs in Pakhymerēs’ mention of his marriage. Some com- mentators attribute the grant of the title to the Byzantine emperor: e.g., Б. ФЕРЈАНЧИЋ, Деспоти…, p. 143 (who thinks it was Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos), I. Biliarsky, The Despots…, p. 148; IDEM, Институциите…, p. 53 (who thinks it was Iōannēs IV Doukas Laskaris); Г. АТАНАСОВ, Севастократори и деспоти…, p. 469 (who thinks it was Theodōros II Doukas Laskaris, deceased since 1258). Since Iōannēs IV was a minor about to be toppled from the throne, and Mikhaēl VIII was trying to get rid of the three remaining princesses of the previous dynasty by marrying them to foreigners (none of the others receiving the title of despotēs on account of their marriages), the more likely opinion seems to be that of П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения…, p. 117; В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 499–501, and S. Georgieva, The Byzantine Princesses in Bulgaria, BBg 9, 1995, p. 196, who attribute the grant of the title to Konstantin Asen. 72 See two Hungarian royal charters in Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, vol. I, ed. E. Hur- muzaki, Bucureşti 1887, p. 348, № 258, from 1270: Zuetizlaus Bulgarorum Imperator, karissimus gener noster; p. 353, № 262, from 1271: Swetizlaum Imperatorem Bulgarorum. 73 This is described in Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VII de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 549. 74 For the wife of Jakov Svetoslav, see S. Georgieva, The Byzantine Princesses…, p. 194–197. If she were illegitimate, as suggested by C. de Fresne Du Cange, Familiae Augustae Byzantinae, Paris 1680, p. 224, and followed by A. Failler, Chronologie et composition dans l’Histoire de Georges Pachymère 1, REB 38, 1980, p. 73 (because she was a fifth, unnamed daughter of Theodōros II, whereas other authors had named only four daughters), then Jakov Svetoslav could not have derived a claim on the Bulgarian throne through her, and he might not have been described as the in-law (gener) of the Hungarian king in 1270. Given the names of her mother (Elena) and sisters (Eirēnē, Maria, Theodōra, and Eudokia), the unnamed princess might have been named Anna: it is the most common remaining Byzantine female name in this period, and also the name of her maternal grand- mother, Anna of Hungary. 75 The alternative proposed by В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 321–322, is less persuasive (a sister of Ja- kov Svetoslav could not have legitimized a claim to the Bulgarian throne) and unnecessary. 284 Ian S.R. Mladjov emperors if he were an emperor’s ancestor76. Moreover, the ecclesiastical pressure on Georgi Terter I to separate from Ivan Asen III’s sister would become even more explicable, if his two successive wives were first cousins once removed, and thus well within the prohibited degrees of kinship.

IVb. Names associated with the House of Asen (Table 1) At least eleven, possibly fifteen, Bulgarian monarchs bore double names compounded with the name Asen. Among these the most common combination, attested five times, is Ivan Asen. The names of Ivan Asen II (1218–1241), Ivan Asen III (1279–1280), and Ivan Aleksandăr’s sons and co-rulers Ivan Asen IV (c. 1337–1349) and Ivan Asen V (c. 1356–1388?) do not necessitate any special comment beyond what has been stated above. However, the case of Ivan Asen I (c. 1188–1196) merits some additional consideration. It has been questioned whether the first Asen really bore the double name Ivan Asen. This is attested in the Synodikon of Boril, while Patriarch Evtimij’s Life of Saint Ivan of Rila explicitly states that Asen’s baptismal name was Ivan77. How- ever, taking into account that his younger brother Kalojan was clearly baptized Ivan, Zlatarski expressed understandable doubt that Asen could have been baptized with the same name as his younger brother78. Although Zlatarski’s doubts have not been accepted by every historian writing on the period79, they have left an influential legacy. A recent attempt to reconcile the sources and Zlatarski’s logic,

76 Поменици, p. 222 (Bojana): іакова деспота ц(а)ра, and p. 224 (Poganovo): Iіакѡва ц(а)ра. The usual inference is that the imperial title attached to Jakov’s name here reflects his documented use of this title in claiming the crown: e.g., В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 539–540; И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 52; idem, Погановският поменик, ГСУ.НЦСВПИД 84 / 85, 1990 / 1991, p. 64. But the memorial lists include other examples of notables who did not reign as emperors of Bulgaria (and, save for Jakov Svetoslav, do not seem to have claimed the title), and were nevertheless mechanically listed as such: the sebastokratōr Aleksandăr, the otherwise unknown Šegmon, the despotēs Kuman, and the despotēs Sracimir. For commentary on their inclusion, see again И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Погановският поменик…, p. 63–68. The Synodikon of Boril, p. 162, fol. 203б, also includes Šišman of Vidin, inserted between Georgi Terter I and Todor Svetoslav; he is not only an emperor’s father, but also seems to have been substituted for rulers who were edited out of the list: П. ПАВЛОВ, Куманите…, p. 24, n. 59. The labeling of Jakov Svetoslav as emperor in the memorial lists is, therefore, probably the result of the mechanical repetition of the title emperor for every entry, rather than a commemoration of the status he actually claimed. 77 The Synodikon of Boril, p. 150, 202а, has: Iѡанну Асѣн ц(а)р Бѣл’гню; the office of Saint Ivan of Rila in the Draganovo menaion similarly has Iѡ Асѣнѣ ц(а)рѣ, [in:] Български старини из Македония, ed. Й. ИВАНОВ, София 1931, p. 359, № 40; Evtimij of Tărnovo, Life of Saint Ivan of Rila, [in:] Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius, ed. E. Kałužniacki, Wien 1901, p. 23: цари Асѣни иже въ свѧтѣмь кр(ь)щенїи имЕНОВАнь бывь Iѡаннъ. 78 В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. II, p. 482–483. 79 For example, И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 27–40, № I 1, and Andreev, in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 246–252. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 285 has led to the ingenious suggestion that Asen was not baptized Ivan, and only assumed this name later, to honor Saint Ivan of Rila80. While this theory is not altogether implausible, it not only relies on evidence that is circumstantial, but it contradicts the express testimony of medieval sources, which ought to remain our point of departure. Moreover, in view of the preceding considerations about the widespread use of double names, there is no real problem with two brothers bearing the names Ivan Asen and Ivan, respectively. Although the baptismal name is the same in both cases, the elder brother is distinguished by his double name, which eliminates the imaginary problem; as we have seen in the family of Ivan Aleksandăr, brothers could share the same baptismal name if the secular names distinguished between them. We may also note that the name of the younger brother in question is very often attested in a diminutive form like Ioanica, rendered in foreign sources as Iōannitza, Iohannitius, Johanisse, etc.81 While this could have originally referred to his youth, that in itself could no longer have been a significant factor by the early 1200s. More likely the diminutive had been intended to add further distinction between the two brothers who shared the same baptismal name by marking the younger brother as such. The assumption of the more formal name Kalojan (on the basis of Greek Καλοϊωάννης) may well have been the younger brother’s reaction to a nickname he no longer had to suffer. Another line of argument, not pursued by Zlatarski, would be that Ivan Asen II could not have borne the same name as his father Ivan Asen I. While it is always possible that an exception to the rule could occur, especially where monarchs are concerned, there are various unknowns that could account for this seeming problem. It is entirely possible, for example, that Ivan Asen II was originally named simply Ivan, in honor of his uncle Ivan (Kalojan), and that he adopted the name Ivan Asen to honor his father and stress legitimacy and continuity when making a claim for the Bulgarian throne in 1217–1218. As we have seen, it was in a similar vein that Mico Asen (1246–1257), Konstantin Asen (1257–1277), and Ivan Asen III (1279–1280) added Asen to their names. There remains no serious reason to doubt that Ivan Asen was the full name of the first Asen, and this leaves us with five monarchs named Ivan Asen, as listed above. Several Bulgarian monarchs of Asenid descent bore the double name Mihail Asen. The names of Ivan Asen II’s son Mihail Asen (1246–1256), of Šišman’s son

80 И. ЛАЗАРОВ, Владетелското име „Йоан”… 81 For the name see В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 105, n. 2; Ἰωαννίτζη, in Nicetae Cho- niatae orationes et epistulae, § 11, ed. J. van Dieten, Berlin 1972, p. 106 [= CFHB, 3]; Iohannitio, in J.-P. Migne, [in:] PL, vol. CCXIV, col. 825; Johanisse, in La conquête de Constantinople par Geoffroi de Villehardouin avec la continuation de Henri de Valenciennes, § 429, 1, ed. M. N. de Wailly, Paris 1872, p. 256. 286 Ian S.R. Mladjov

Mihail Asen (1323–1330), and of Ivan Aleksandăr’s eldest son and co-ruler Mihail Asen (c. 1332–1355) do not require any special comment beyond what has been stated above. Although he is not actually attested in the surviving sources by the double name Mihail Asen, circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that a fourth Bulgarian monarch bore that name. This is Mihail, the son of Konstantin Asen by his third wife MariaKantakou zēnē82. Born sometime between 1269 and 1272, Mihail was crowned as early as 1272, and succeeded as sole emperor of Bulgaria on his father’s death in 127783. He is amply attested in both native Bulgarian and Byzantine sources, but no preserved official charters or seals bear his name. His short reign as a minor reflects the adop- tion of Byzantine imperial practices in Bulgaria. In addition to the Byzantine-style association on the throne mentioned above84, Mihail was titled porphyrogennētos, partly in imitation of Byzantine practice and perhaps partly to deny claims to his father’s throne by any potential sons of Konstantin Asen’s first, non-royal wife85. When the empress-mother Maria Kantakouzēnē was threatened by the advance of Byzantine troops on the capital Tărnovo, she struck a deal with her husband’s killer, the rebel leader now known as Ivajlo, married him, and made him emperor of Bulgaria without deposing her son86. This was a particularly Byzantine solution to the combination of an underage monarch and powerful political rivals, manifested most clearly in the reigns of Nikēphoros II Phōkas (963–969) and Rōmanos IV Diogenēs (1068–1071), both of whom associated themselves on the throne with minor emperors by marrying their respective mothers.

82 For him see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 118–119, № I 25, and Andreev in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 474–476. 83 The association on the throne is described by Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palae- ologo, p. 547: Maria, having crowned her son Mikhaēl in spite of his age, raised him and educated him as emperor, including her child among his parents at acclamations (Ἡ μέντοι γε Μαρία, Μιχαὴλ τὸν παῖδα καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἡλικίαν στέψασα, βασιλικῶς ἔτρεφε καὶ ἀνῆγε, τὴν εὐφημίαν μετὰ πατέρας τῷ παιδὶ παρέχουσα). Mihail is included with his father and the Bulgarian patriarch Ignatij in a gloss from 1272 / 1273, for which see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 65, № 28: царю Константинѹ и Михаилѹ сынѹ его. 84 The earlier association between Petăr IV (1185–1196) and his two brothers Ivan Asen I and Kalo- jan did not follow contemporary (or for that matter earlier) Byzantine practice, in which brother emperors (a phenomenon limited to the Heraclian and Macedonian dynasties) succeeded to the throne together. 85 In the gloss from 1276 / 1277, for which see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 279–280, № 84: Михаилѣ порфиророднѣмь. The Rojak inscription names the багрор[о]жд(е)нѣмь… ц(а)ри михаи[лѣ], in a year that has been restored as 67[6]1 (1252 / 1253), in the reign of Mihail Asen I: Надписи, vol. II, p. 118–119. Nevertheless, see Й. АНДРЕЕВ, Кой е “багренородният” цар Михаил от скалния надпис при село Рояк, Провадийско?, [in:] ТКШ, vol. V, p. 441–454, who convincingly identifies this as a record of Mihail Asen II from 68[1]1 (1302 / 1303), when he attempted to reassert himself in Bulgaria in opposition to Todor Svetoslav. 86 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 563. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 287

This Mihail, who on account of his minority and his short tenure on the throne has been almost universally ignored in the enumeration of Bulgarian monarchs87, was probably also given the double name Mihail Asen. This can be inferred from his father’s official name Konstantin Asen, which was applied in charters, seals, and coins alike, and also from the obvious precedent of the earlier Bulgarian emperor Mihail Asen, who seems to have been regarded as Konstantin Asen’s most recent legitimate predecessor88. Although it has been surmised that Konstantin Asen and Maria Kantakouzēnē’s son was named in honor of his maternal great-uncle, the Byzantine emperor Mikhaēl VIII Palaiologos89, this plausible inference, even if partly correct, need not conflict with the explanation suggested above. The remaining possible objection, that Mihail is never explicitly named Mihail Asen in the preserved sources is not compelling: the sources in question are informal glosses that similarly omit the element Asen from the name of his father and co- ruler as well90. They do not and cannot prove that the son of Konstantin Asen and Maria Kantakouzēnē was named simply Mihail, as opposed to Mihail Asen. In fact, the circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. It would be curious indeed, if the father legitimized himself with the assumption of a name that he would have later denied his son and intended heir. Therefore, between 1277 and 1279, Bulgaria was governed in the name of yet another Mihail Asen. Retrospective bias cannot excuse the omission of this ephemeral monarch from the list of Bulgarian rulers or from the numeration attached to their names. This is perhaps all the more significant, because there is good reason to doubt whether the name Ivajlo, now commonly attributed to the killer of Konstantin Asen, who later married the widowed Maria Kantakouzēnē and became the co-ruler of her son Mihail Asen, really belonged to this rebel. The only source to provide

87 See for example В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 550–551, who recognized that in 1277 Mihail had remained sole emperor, but omitted him in the count, skipping from Mihail II Asen (1246–1256) to Mihail III Šišman (1323–1330); as a further example of this inconsistent treatment, Zlatarski did present Mihail as a Bulgarian emperor by printing his name in bold type and followed by the regnal years 1277–1278 in his genealogy of Bulgaria’s Asenid monarchs – ibidem, p. 608. 88 The same cannot be said for Mico Asen, whom Konstantin Asen had driven from the throne, or for Mico’s immediate predecessor Kaliman, who had briefly seized the throne through murder. An Armenian gloss suggests that Konstantin Asen (Kat’ənd) was indeed presented as the legitimate successor of the murdered Mihail Asen (Ker Mixayl) – A. Margos, Deux sources arméniennes du XIIIe siècle concernant certains événements historiques du second empire bulgare, EB 2 / 3, 1965, p. 295: (in the time of) the Bulgarian ruler Kat’ənd, who succeeded Ker Mixayl, the son of Hawan, murdered by Kalaymann, the son of his uncle. 89 See for example Andreev in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 474. 90 See the glosses in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 64, № 27: ц(а)рѧ Костѧтина; p. 65, № 28: царю Константинѹ; p. 279, № 84: ц(а)ри Костадинѣ; compare the building inscription from 1355, apparently naming Ivan Aleksandăr and his son Mihail Asen simply Aleksandăr and Mihail, in Книжнина, vol. II, p. 285, № 90. 288 Ian S.R. Mladjov this name is a 1278 / 1279 gloss from the Svrlig gospels by Voisil the Grammarian. The text’s mention of Greeks under the city of Tărnovo in the days of the emperor Ivail was interpreted, plausibly enough, as referring to a Byzantine attack on the former rebel in the Bulgarian capital by Konstantin Jireček, whose opinion has dominated Bulgarian and foreign historiography ever since91. This was not, however, the original interpretation of the passage, and recent studies have reopened the question, showing that another possibility, that Ivajlo (as Ivail has been ratio- nalized in modern usage) is simply an informal reference to the Byzantine protégé Ivan Asen III (1279–1280), is as likely, if not more likely an inference92. If so, we are left with the nicknames Lakhanas and Kordokoubas, attested only in Greek form93, to designate the man who was once hailed as the leader of the first anti-feudal peasant revolt in the history of Europe94. For all that he was a minor eclipsed by others, his stepson and co-ruler Mihail Asen at least provides a named and legitimate head of state to span the period between 1277 and 1279. This leaves us with four monarchs bearing the double name Mihail Asen: Mihail Asen I (1246–1256), Mihail Asen II (1277–1279), Mihail Asen III (1323–1330), and Mihail Asen IV (c. 1332–1355). There are two additional cases where, in the absence of sufficiently explicit formal sources, circumstantial considerations strongly imply double names compounded with the name Asen. The first of these cases is that of the cousin and

91 K. Jireček, Geschichte…, p. 276, n. 21 (idem, История…, p. 323, n. 29). Jireček’s interpretation has been followed almost universally in modern historical narratives, including, among many others, В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 545–546; G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, 3New Brunswick–New York 1969, p. 462; J. V.A. Fine Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor 1987, p. 195–198. For the gloss from 1278 / 1279, see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 65–66, № 29: вь д(ь)ни ц(а)рѣ Иваила… ги стоіахѹ грьци подь градомь трьновомь. 92 For the original publication of the Svrlig gloss, see М. МИЛИЋЕВИЋ, Ј. ШАФАРИК, Сврљишки од- ломци еванђелија и запис од 1279 године, ГСУД 3, 1866, p. 244–264; the authors assume that Ivail is a reference to Ivan Asen III, as do М. ДРИНОВ, Исторически преглед на Българската църк- ва от самото ѝ начало и до днес, Wien 1869, cited here as published in М. ДРИНОВ, Избрани произведения, vol. II, София 1971, p. 110, n. 7, and В. МАКУШЕВ, История болгарь в труде К. О. Иречека 2, ЖМНП 197, 1878, p. 69; support for this earlier interpretation has been advanced recently by К. ГОСПОДИНОВ, Свърлижката приписка като исторически извор, ИП 61.3 / 4, 2005, p. 151–175, and В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 280–283; this criticism has also been accepted by К. КРЪСТЕВ, Българското царство…, p. 15. 93 Geōrgios Pakhymerēs, Libri VI de Michaele Palaeologo, p. 549: called Kordokoubas… and therefore named Lakhanas (Κορδόκουβας κεκλημένος… καὶ Λαχανᾶς ἐντεῦθεν φημίζεται). 94 For less tendentious treatments of the events, see J. V.A. Fine Jr., The Late Medieval Balkans…, p. 195–198, and В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 272–283. For Bărdokva, the possible Slavic original of Pakhymerēs’ Kordokoubas, see В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 544, n. 1, who discusses the slightly variant considerations offered by Sreznevskij, Palauzov, Jireček, and Makušev. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 289 murderer of Mihail Asen I, Kaliman95, the son of Ivan Asen II’s brother Aleksandăr96. In spite of the circuitous language of our main source, Geōrgios Akropolitēs, there is no need to doubt that this prince seized the throne in 1256, at least long enough to marry his predecessor’s widow97. His unusual baptismal name was shared by his first cousin, Mihail Asen I’s older half-brother and predecessor Kaliman Asen (1241–1246). This first Kaliman Asen was apparently given his baptismal name to honor his maternal uncle, the Hungarian prince Kálmán (d. 1241), second son of the Hungarian king András II (1205–1235). It is unreasonable to postulate that, like his brother Ivan Asen II, the sebastokratōr Aleksandăr, had also married a Hungarian princess (and an unattested one at that)98. Therefore, the name of Aleksandăr’s son Kaliman cannot be dissociated from that of his cousin Kaliman Asen. Perhaps Aleksandăr’s son was born only after Kaliman Asen had become Ivan Asen II’s heir apparent, probably no later than 123799. If so, it is natural to conclude that Aleksandăr’s son Kaliman was named in honor of his older cousin and bore the same double name, Kaliman Asen100. Thus, two Bulgarian monarchs bore that name: Kaliman Asen I (1241–1246) and Kaliman Asen II (1256).

95 For him see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 113–114, № I 22. The doubts about the name Kali- man and his erroneous identification with the sebastokratōr Kalojan of the Bojana inscription by В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, 468, n. 1, have been long dismissed. The sources say little: Geōrgios Akropolitēs, Annales, § 73: Mikhaēl… having been mortally wounded by his first cousin Kalimanos… died immediately (Μιχαήλ… πρὸς τοῦ πρωτεξαδέλφου αὐτοῦ Καλιμάνου καιρίαν πληγεὶς… εὐθὺς ἐτεθνήκει); the Armenian gloss from 1258 that confirms this presentation of the events, in A. Margos, Deux sources…, has been quoted above. 96 For him, see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 92–93, № I 8. 97 With П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения…, p. 17, И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 113, and idem, В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, История на средновековна България…, p. 507–508; contra R. Macrides, George Akropolites…, p. 335, n. 3; Geōrgios Akropolitēs, Annales, § 73: Kalimanos, having taken his (Mikhaēl’s) wife, expected to make the sovereignty of the Bulgarians his own (Καλιμᾶνος τὴν ἐκείνου λαβὼν γαμετὴν ἔδοξε τὴν τῶν Βουλγάρων ἀρχὴν σφετερίσασθαι). See also С. ГЕОРГИЕВА (ТОДОРОВА), Дъщерята на Ростислав Михайлович и събитията в България от средата на XIII век, ИП 45.2, 1989, p. 52–56, who convincingly interprets the intervention of the bride’s father Rostislav Mihajlovič as an attempt to bolster the positions of his new son-in-law Kaliman, rather than to make himself ruler of Bulgaria. 98 That the sebastokratōr Aleksandăr married a Hungarian princess was proposed by П. НИКОВ, Българо-унгарски отношения…, p. 17, n. 1, on the basis of his son Kaliman’s Hungarian name. 99 At that point Ivan Asen II’s Hungarian wife Anna and one of their children died: Geōrgios Akropolitēs, Annales, § 36: αἴφνης ἐπῄει μήνυμα τῷ Ἀσάν, ὡς ἡ σύζυγος αὐτοῦ ἡ ἐξ Οὔγγρων ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἐγένετο· τετελεύτηκε δὲ κατὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ παιδίον αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ Τρινόβου ἐπίσκοπος. That the child in question was male and possibly named Petăr has been inferred on the basis of now lost evidence by Lazarov, in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 553, but is doubted by others, e.g., И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 104, № I 17. 100 The first element of the name is attested in this fashion in Bulgarian and Greek sources alike, and, with И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 105, n. 1, and A. Margos, Deux sources…, p. 296, n. 3, there is no good reason to prefer a form based on the Latin Colomannus, as done by П. НИКОВ, Българо- унгарски отношения…, p. 13, and В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 420, following a papal 290 Ian S.R. Mladjov

The third and last case, in which a double name compounded withAsen can be inferred with great probability from the circumstantial evidence, involves the last ruler of Medieval Bulgaria, Ivan Sracimir’s son Konstantin101. Various sources record the existence and political station of this monarch both as his father’s junior co-ruler and after his father’s death or deposition. Recent re-examination of the evidence has suggested that for most of the period from 1397 to shortly before his death in 1422 Konstantin remained in possession of at least some portion of Ivan Sracimir’s Vidin polity, and therefore he was rather more than a merely titular emperor of Bulgaria102. Ioasaf, the metropolitan of Vidin, refers to Konstantin as his father’s co-ruler and as a New Constantine, on the occasion of his success- ful mission to translate the relics of the Saints Philothea, Petka (Paraskeuē), and Empress Theophanō from Tărnovo to Vidin103. Konstantin’s status as monarch is also attested by no less a potentate than Sigismund of Luxemburg, king of Hungary (1387–1437), future emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (1410–1437), and king of Bohemia (1419–1437), who refers to Konstantin as the magnificent emperor of Bulgaria in a letter from 1404104. The son of an emperor, the brother of another, and a future emperor himself, Sigismund is not likely to have conceded imperial status to someone who did not have a convincing claim to it. Similarly Konstantin of Kostenec recorded the death of the emperor Konstantin, son of Sracimir, the Bul- garian emperor in September 1422, in his Life of Stefan Lazarević105. The sources always seem to refer to this ruler by the single name Konstantin, but none of them is an official document issued by his chancery; no seal or charter of his is preserved to indicate that he did not bear the double name Konstantin Asen like his 13th-century predecessor. Given the use of the element Asen in the names of three of Konstantin’s uncles (Mihail Asen and the two Ivan Asens), as well as the historical precedent of the earlier emperor Konstantin Asen, it is probable to infer that the last medieval Bulgarian monarch also bore the double name Konstantin Asen. Such a conclusion seems to be supported by the memorial lists

letter from 1245, in Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 4, pars 1, ed. G. Féjer, Buda 1829, p. 365: Illustri Colomanno, in Bulgaria imperanti. Nikov and Zlatarski’s notion that the Bulgarian form Kaliman was influenced by the Greek rendering Kalimanos seems implausible. 101 For him see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 237–240, № I 50; П. ПАВЛОВ, Цар Константин II Асен, LN 7 (80), 2006, http://liternet.bg / publish13 / p_pavlov / konstantin_II_asen.htm, and Pavlov in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 381–385. 102 For the reassessment of the evidence, see П. ПАВЛОВ, И. ТЮТЮНДЖИЕВ, Българите и османското завоевание (краят на XIII – средата на XV в.), Велико Търново 1995. 103 Ioasaf of Vidin, Life of Saint Philothea, § 10–11, [in:] Aus der panegyrischen Litteratur der Süd- slaven, ed. E. Kałužniacki, Wien 1901, p. 111: новаго Кѡнстантїна; 113: Кѡнстантїнь царь. 104 Chroniques relatives à l’histoire de la Belgique, ed. J. Brandon, G. de Roye, A. de But, Bruxelles 1870, p. 94: Constantinus, imperator Bulgariae magnificus. 105 В. ЈАГИЋ, Константин Философ и његов живот Стефана Лазаревића деспота српскога, ГСУД 42, 1875, p. 314: царь Коньстаньтинь сынь Срацимира царіа бльгарьскааго. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 291

(pomenici) of the Bojana and Poganovo churches, where the name of emperor Kon- stantin is followed immediately by that of emperor Asen towards the end of the listing of Bulgarian monarchs. Needless to say, no Asen could have followed Konstan- tin, who had at any rate lost his lands by the time of his death. On the other hand, the memorial lists sometimes inadvertently divided up double names, creating two entries out of an original single entry106. While there is no guarantee that the original texts of the memorial lists would have included both elements of a double name107, it is likely that the otherwise unexplained Asen at this point in the list is nothing more than the artificially or accidentally separated second element of the double name Konstantin Asen108. The circumstantial evidence therefore points to the existence of a second Konstantin Asen at the very end of the medieval series of Bulgarian monarchs. Thus, there were two rulers of that name: Konstantin Asen I (1257–1277) and Konstantin Asen II (1395–1422). The assumption of the name Asen by Mico (1256–1257) has already been discussed. Whether Boril (1207–1218) assumed the name is less certain, though pos- sible109. Since neither name occurs more than once on the Bulgarian throne, there is no potential for error or confusion.

106 This is most obvious in the division of Gavril Radomir into the successive entries of Radomir and Gavril, and of the first Georgi Terter into Georgi and Terter: Поменици, p. 222 (Bojana) and 224 (Poganovo, where the despotēs Kuman was inserted in-between Georgi and Terter). For the Zōgraphou memorial list, see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 198, 201, № 69, but here the listing is even more confused. It is possible that some of the seemingly superfluous rulers named Asen in the memorial lists are also elements separated from the remainder of their double names. 107 In fact double names are often reduced to only one of their elements in the lists, for example those of the first Konstantin Asen, of the second Georgi Terter, Ivan Aleksandăr, Ivan Sracimir, Ivan Šišman, in both the Bojana and Poganovo memorial lists. 108 И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Погановският поменик…, p. 67–68, suggests that the Asen who follows Sraci- mir in the Poganovo memorial list is to be identified with a son of Ivan Šišman. But the existence of such a son of Ivan Šišman has been questioned by Й. АНДРЕЕВ, България през втората четвърт на XIV в., Велико Търново 1993, p. 147–152, who argues that the two Asens of the Synodikon of Boril, p. 166, 35б, are actually the two sons of Ivan Aleksandăr named Ivan Asen, rather than any otherwise unattested sons of Ivan Šišman; Andreev (Ibidem, p. 145) would rather identify the last Asen of the memorial lists with Ivan Šišman’s son Fružin, who is included in the Bojana and Zōgraphou memorial lists, though not in the one from Poganovo. But while Fružin is indeed attested in a foreign source as Frusinus Asan – see И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 244, № I 54 – the inversion of the names, with Asen coming before Fružin, is most unlikely. 109 A charter of the Hungarian king Béla IV (1235–1270) issued in 1259 names Boril as Assenus Burul, imperator quondam Bulgarorum: reporduced in П. НИКОВ, Цар Борил под светлината на един нов паметник, СБАН 3, 1912, p. 133. Since several of Boril’s kinsmen, all of them bearing the name Asen, had succeeded him by 1259, it is not impossible that the Hungarian source ascribed the name Asen to Boril by mistake. 292 Ian S.R. Mladjov

IVc. Names associated with the House of Šišman (Table 3) Although the last monarchs of the Second Bulgarian State have long been desig- nated members of the Šišmanid Dynasty (Šišmanovci), this convenient but modern designation should technically cover only those in patrilineal descent from Šišman of Vidin110. In other words, strictly speaking, the House of Šišman encompasses only two Bulgarian monarchs: Mihail Asen III (1323–1330) and his son Ivan Stefan (1330–1331). Ivan Aleksandăr and the members of his family are only matrilineal descendants of the House of Šišman, and technically belong to what we should term the House of Sracimir. The two families shared matrilineal descent from the Asenids, and were, in this way, offshoots of the House of Asen. The names of the few known members of the House of Šišman provide little to go on in the context of this study. The two monarchs are attested with double names; of these the secular names Asen and Stefan pointed to Asenid and Nemanjid ancestry, resplectively. The baptismal names of Mihail Asen III and his son the despotēs Mihail reflected their Asenid descent through a sister of Mihail Asen I (1246–1256)111. The namesMihail Asen and Mihail were brought to the House of Sracimir through the marriage of Mihail Asen III’s sister Petrica to the despotēs Sracimir: one of her sons was named Mihail112, and her grandson, the eldest son and co-ruler of Ivan Aleksandăr, Mihail Asen IV (c. 1332–1355)113. Only the name Šišman seems truly particular to this family, and is well attested among its members: Mihail Asen III’s father, Šišman of Vidin, and Mihail Asen III’s son Šišman114. Mihail Asen III’s sister Petrica brought the name Šišman into the House of Sracimir, where it is attested for two of her grandsons: Ivan Aleksandăr’s son, the emperor Ivan Šišman (1371–1395), and Mihail’s son Šišman, known only from the Jambol inscription115. Ivan Šišman’s son Fružin was the father of yet another Šišman116. Of the known onomastic repertoire of the male members of the family, there remain only the names of Mihail Asen III’s son Lodovico and of Mihail Asen III’s brother Belaur117. The name Lodovico appears to have been assumed by the

110 For Šišman see Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 707–708; К. КРЪСТЕВ, Династията на Тертеревци…, p. 25–27, 144–151, 243–246; the main primary source is Dani- lo II, Life of Milutin…, p. 117–119. 111 И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 113, 119, 435–451; for the identification of the Asenid ances- tress of Mihail Asen III as Marija (rather than Anna / Teodora), see I. Mladjov, The Children…, p. 485–490. 112 И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 184–186, № I 35. 113 Ibidem, p. 192–197, № I 39. 114 Ibidem, p. 142–144, № I 30. 115 Ibidem, p. 236–237, № I 49. 116 Ibidem, p. 244. 117 Ibidem, p. 134–136, I 27; Й. АНДРЕЕВ, България…, p. 35–41. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 293

Bulgarian prince as a catechumen (and later convert) to Catholic Christianity118. This opens up the possibility that Lodovico could be identical with another son of Mihail Asen III, known by some other name. For various reasons this is not possible for Ivan Stefan or Šišman, but the despotēs Mihail remains a theoretical possibility119. As for Belaur, his unexpected name has been explained as Hungar- ian in origin and traced to a hypothetical Hungarian sojourn of Šišman’s Cuman ancestors120; alternately it might have entered the onomastic repertoire of the family through the second marriage of Šišman, to the daughter of the Serbian grand župan Dragoš121.

IVd. Names associated with the House of Sracimir (Table 4) As we have seen, the House of Sracimir was a matrilineal offshoot of both the House of Asen and the House of Šišman through the marriage of Mihail Asen III’s sister Petrica to the despotēs Sracimir122. It arrived on the throne with Sracimir’s son Ivan Aleksandăr (1331–1371) and encompassed seven monarchs (including three who never became senior or sole rulers), all of whom have been mentioned above. The family’s onomastic repertoire is characterized by the perpetuation of Asenid and Šišmanid names like Ivan Aleksandăr, Aleksandăr, Ivan Asen, Mihail Asen, Mihail, Ivan Šišman, Šišman, and, among the females, Elena, Tamara, Teodora. Apart from the remarkable frequency of Ivan as a baptismal name (Ivan Aleksandăr, one of his brothers, four of his sons), it is the name Sracimir that seems most characteristic in this lineage. We find this name attested for Ivan Aleksandăr’s father, the despotēs Sracimir, and for Ivan Aleksandăr’s second son, the emperor Ivan Sracimir (1356–1397), an example of papponymy, especially if the despotēs also bore the double name Ivan Sracimir123. The nameSracimir is also attested for two or three additional members of the clan, although their precise relation to Ivan Aleksandăr and his immediate family remains unknown. These are the great epikernēs Sracimir and his grandson Sraco (evidently another Sracimir), mentioned in the inscription commemorating the visit of Ivan Šišman (1371–1395) to Šumen124. That they were related to the ruling family is confirmed by a document

118 I. Mladjov, The Bulgarian Prince…, p. 615; see also И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 148–149, № I 32. 119 I. Mladjov, The Bulgarian Prince…, p. 609. But it is just as possible that Mihail was the baptismal name of Šišman, in which case there would be no possibility for identification with Lodovico. 120 К. КРЪСТЕВ, Българското царство…, p. 222; G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. II, Leiden 1983, p. 205: Béla-úr. 121 Danilo II, Life of Milutin…, p. 119: вьдасть мѹ дьштерь великааго свого жѹпана Драгоша. 122 For Sracimir see Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 620–621. 123 As suggested, on the basis of circumstantial considerations, by Pavlov in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 708; compare Г. АТАНАСОВ, Добруджанското деспотство…, p. 84, n. 16. 124 Надписи, vol. II, p. 135–136. 294 Ian S.R. Mladjov issued by the Byzantine emperor Iōannēs V Palaiologos (1341–1391), in which the epikernēs Sracimir is named as the emperor’s beloved uncle and in-law125. This would only be possible if the epikernēs were related to Ivan Aleksandăr, who was indeed a relative, by marriage, of the Byzantine emperor126. Thus at least two more Sracimirs were somehow related to the Bulgarian imperial house in the second half of the 14th century. A further member of the family who might have been named Sracimir is the monk Samuil, described as the uncle by blood (γνήσιος θεῖος) and ancestral uncle (πρόγονος θεῖος) of the emperor Ivan Aleksandăr on an icon of the Virgin of Mercy (Theotokos tēs Eleousēs) from Mesēmbria (Nesebăr)127. The monas- tic name Samuil is suitable for a layman named Sracimir, and the phrase ancestral uncle might identify this individual as an uncle of the despotēs Sracimir and great- uncle of Ivan Aleksandăr, although the precise relationship remains uncertain128. The nameAleksandăr , which recalls that of the aforementioned sebastokratōr Aleksandăr, brother of Ivan Asen II, was used for three members of the family: Ivan Aleksandăr, his nephew Aleksandăr of Valona129, and Ivan Aleksandăr’s grandson, Ivan Šišman’s son Aleksandăr130. TheSynodikon of Boril mentions two brothers of the despotēs Sracimir, Radoslav and Dimităr131. Although the name Radoslav could possibly point to a connection with the family of Smilec (who had a brother named Radoslav), the names are unexceptional enough and in the absence of additional evidence they cannot be used to draw sufficiently plausible conclusions132.

125 Actes de l’Athos 4, p. 87–88, № A.36: ὁ πιγκέρνης τοῦ ὑψηλοτάτου βασιλέως τῶν Βουλγάρων καὶ περιποθήτου θείου καὶ συμπενθέρου τῆς βασιλείας μου κῦρ Στραντζιμηρὸς. For the great epikernēs Sracimir see А. КУЗЕВ, Великият епикерний Срацимир – виден български сановник през XIV в., Век 4.4, 1975, p. 14–17; И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 175–177. 126 That the court title of epikernēs was conferred upon the ruler’s kinsman is unsurprising, given the attestation of the ‘epikernēs’ Petăr, the emperor’s cousin, on a ring discovered at Ajtos: И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 174. 127 Т. ГЕРАСИМОВ, Новооткрит надпис върху иконата „Богородица Умиление” от Несебър, ИНМБ 1, 1950, p. 253–256. 128 Compare И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 170, n. 18. Г. АТАНАСОВ, Добруджанското деспотст- во…, p. 79–80, thinks that the monk Samuil was a brother of the despotēs Sracimir, but in that case he should have been simply the uncle (θεῖος) of Ivan Aleksandăr. For comparison, note that the great epikernēs Sracimir appears to have become a monk under the name Silvestăr, as attested in the Syno- dikon of Boril, p. 167, fol. 33a, but note the caution of И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 174–175. 129 И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 236, № I 48; В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 362–368. 130 И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 241–242, № I 53. 131 Synodikon of Boril, p. 162, fol. 203б: Страцимир деспот и Радослав и Димїтр братїа его. For Sracimir and his brothers, see also И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Институциите…, p. 67–69; idem, The Despots…, p. 152–153. 132 The same is true for a possible additional brother, the despotēs Vladislav, attested only in the memorial lists at Bojana and Poganovo: Поменици, p. 222 (Bojana): Страцимира ц(а)ра, Владислава брата его, and p. 224 (Poganovo): Страцимира ц(а)ра, Деспота Владислава брата его; see also the comments of И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Погановският поменик…, p. 65–66; idem, Институциите, p. 71–72; Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 295

V. Regularization and Systematization The foregoing considerations indicate that the majority of monarchs (22 out of 27) of the Second Bulgarian State bore double names. This both necessitates and makes possible a regularization and systematization of the nomenclature of Bul- garian rulers. Fortunately, with very few exceptions, this would result in little ostensible change, thereby minimizing the potential for confusion. It is easiest to demonstrate this reassessment with a concise list of monarchs (some of the dates are approximate): House of Asen (and successors) 1185–1197 Petăr IV (originally named Todor), with 1188–1196 Ivan Asen I, brother of Petăr IV, and then with 1196–1207 Ivan I (called Kalojan), brother of Petăr IV 1207–1218 Boril, sister’s son of Petăr IV 1218–1241 Ivan Asen II, son of Ivan Asen I 1241–1246 Kaliman Asen I, son of Ivan Asen II 1246–1256 Mihail Asen I, son of Ivan Asen II 1256 Kaliman Asen II, son of Aleksandăr, son of Ivan Asen I 1256–1257 Mico Asen, married Anna / Teodora, daughter of Ivan Asen II 1257–1277 Konstantin Asen I, the son of Tih; married Eirēnē, granddaughter of Ivan Asen II 1277–1279 Mihail Asen II, son of Konstantin Asen I (associated 1272?), with 1278–1279 Ivajlo (name uncertain), married Mihail Asen II’s mother Maria 1279–1280 Ivan Asen III, son of Mico Asen House of Terter 1280–1292 Georgi Terter I, married Marija, daughter of Jakov Svetoslav by granddaughter of Ivan Asen II; also married Marija, daughter of Mico Asen House of Smilec 1292–1298 Smilec, married niece of the Byzantine emperor Mikhaēl VIII 1298–1299 Ivan II, son of Smilec idem, The Despots…, p. 154–155. Although Vladislav appears in both the Bojana and Poganovo memorial lists, these share enough common and unexpected features to be traced back to a single source. Therefore, we cannot be completely certain of the existence of the despotēs Vladislav inde- pendently of or in place of the Radoslav named in the Synodikon of Boril. 296 Ian S.R. Mladjov

House of Terter 1299–1322 Todor Svetoslav, son of Georgi Terter I (associated 1285–1289?) 1322–1323 Georgi Terter II, son of Todor Svetoslav (associated 1321?)

House of Šišman 1323–1330 Mihail Asen III, the son of Šišman by daughter of Petăr and Marija, daughter of Ivan Asen II 1330–1331 Ivan Stefan, son of Mihail Asen III (associated 1323–1324?)

House of Sracimir 1331–1371 Ivan Aleksandăr, son of Sracimir by Mihail Asen III’s sister Petrica + Mihail Asen IV, son of Ivan Aleksandăr (associated c. 1332–1355) 1356–1397 Ivan Sracimir, son of Ivan Aleksandăr (associated c. 1337) + Ivan Asen IV, son of Ivan Aleksandăr (associated c. 1337) 1371–1395 Ivan Šišman, son of Ivan Aleksandăr (associated 1356?) + Ivan Asen V, son of Ivan Aleksandăr (associated 1356–1388?) 1397–1422 Konstantin Asen II, son of Ivan Sracimir (associated 1395?)

The revised arrangement of the monarchs’ names and numbers improves upon current practice, while largely conforming to it. Insofar as this practice is consistent (which is debatable), the only potentially confusing departures are the corrected names of Konstantin Asen I and Mihail Asen III (treated above), and the numbering of Petăr IV, Ivan I (Kalojan), Mihail Asen I and II, and Ivan II. The name of Petăr IV (instead of II) takes into account the temporarily suc- cessful attempts at liberation from Byzantine rule under Petăr II (Deljan133) and

133 It is unclear whether he bore a double name, whether Deljan was a nickname, or whether the original name was Deljan, replaced by Petăr after he claimed the throne. For this see В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. II, p. 48–49, and 48, n. 2, who thinks it was a double name, like those of Gavril Radomir and Ivan Vladislav. Iōannēs Skylitzēs seems to have thought that Deljan was a nickname: Pet- ros, a certain Bulgarian, Delianos by appellation (Πέτρος τις Βούλγαρος, Δελεάνος τὴν προσηγορίαν) – Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, § 23, ed. I. Thurn, Berlin 1973. Mikhaēl Psellos shows am- biguity: his name was Dolianos, and I do not know whether this appellation came from his father, or whether he himself declared the name (Δολιάνος τὸ ὄνομα, οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε πατρόθεν τῆς τοιαύτης προσηγορίας κληρονομήσας εἴθ’ ἑαυτῷ τὴν κλῆσιν ἐπιφημίσας) – Michel Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), 6, 40, ed. É. Renauld, Paris 1926–1928. Psellos’ un- certainty might be influenced by the apparent similarity between the name (as he rendered it), and Greek δόλος, craft, cunning, treachery. The information is insufficient for a definitive conclusion, but it might be significant that no source provides a simple pairing of the names Petăr and Deljan. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 297

Petăr III (Konstantin Bodin) in the 11th century; the corrected usage has already been introduced in Bulgarian historiography134. The name of Ivan I (Kalojan) takes into account that this is the first Bulgarian ruler to bear the name by itself, as opposed to his predecessors Ivan Vladislav and Ivan Asen I, both of whom had double names. The formKalojan itself is nothing more than an ornate and flattering version ofIvan , by analogy with Greek Καλοϊωάννης135. Kalojan did not bear the name Asen, since that would have made him Ivan Asen, like his older brother136. There is, of course, no inherent problem with retaining the designation Kalojan, even if it seems to obscure the standard name form. Mihail Asen I (1246–1256) has long been called Mihail II Asen, on the basis that Boris I (853–889) had been baptized with the name Mihail and that Asen was used here as a family name137. That the latter assumption is flawed has been demonstrated above. That Boris I was baptizedMihail , and was sometimes referred to by his new Christian name alone, is clear enough138. Yet the new name did not completely displace the old one, as shown by contemporary documents and by the naming of Boris II (969–977)139. In fact the name Boris was preferred as the single

134 Especially by Andreev, most recently in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 548–550. Although this ruler was originally named Todor, the name was changed to Petăr upon accession; therefore we cannot speak of a double name (containing two baptismal names!) Todor Petăr, contra Н. КОВАЧЕВ, Двойни лични имена…, p. 368. 135 This numbering of the ruler generally referred to as Kalojan is not unprecedented: e.g., С. ПАЛАУЗОВ, Уния в царуването на Йоанна I Асеня, БК 1.2, 1858, p. 51–63; similarly М. ДРИНОВ, Исторически преглед…, p. 80. 136 The only source to ascribe the name Asen to Kalojan is the late-14th-century Aragonese version of the Chronicle of Morea: Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea, Chronique de Morée aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles, § 59, ed. A. Morel-Fatio, Geneva 1885, p. 16: vn emperador de Burgaria, el qual auia nombre Caloy(a)nni Assan. The chronicle was translated from Greek at a time when the Byzantine Asenids (who used this name as a family name) were both well-known and present in the area. It seems clear that the name Asen was ascribed to Kalojan on this basis. 137 See for example В. Н. ЗЛАТАРСКИ, История…, vol. III, p. 428; И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 106–110, № I 19. The usage is not universal, for example J. V.A. Fine Jr., The Late Medieval Bal- kans…, p. 156, uses simply Michael and Andreev in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, А. ПАНТЕВ, Българските ханове и царе от хан Кубрат до цар Борис III, Велико Търново 2004, p. 200–206, uses Mihail Asen. 138 The seals of Boris I, inscribed in Greek, read Κ(ύρι)ε / Θ(εοτό)κε βοήθη Μηχαὴλ ἄρχοντα Βουλγαρίας, i.e., Lord / Theotokos, assist Mikhaēl, the king of Bulgaria: Й. ЮРУКОВА, В. ПЕНЧЕВ, Български средновековни печати…, p. 24–25; the letters of Pope Ioannes VIII to Boris I are ad- dressed to Michael, king of the Bulgarians, in Johannis VIII papae epistolae passim collectae, ed. E. Cas- par, [in:] MGH.E, vol. VII, p. 1–33: Letter 66 from 878: Michaeli regi Vulgarum; letter 182 from 879: Michaheli regi Vulgarorum; letter 184 from 879: Michaelem regem Bulgarorum); the Balši inscription from 865 / 866 reads [ὁ ἄρχων Βουλγ]αρίας Βορὴς ὁ μετονομασθεὶς Μιχαὴλ, the king of Bulgaria Borēs, renamed Mikhaēl, in Първобългарски надписи, ed. and trans. В. БЕШЕВЛИЕВ, София 1979, p. 139–140, № 15. I translate arkhōn as king rather than prince here on the basis of the Latin use of rex. 139 The monk Hrabăr dated the invention of the Slavic alphabet to the time of the Greek emperor Mihail and the Bulgarian king Boris (михаила ц(ьса)рѣ гръчьскаго и бориса кнѧза блъгарскаго), 298 Ian S.R. Mladjov designation of Boris I even in the later memorial lists of the church140. More recent royal nomenclature has confirmed this preference, in the official style of Boris III (1918–1943). But even if we were to treat the first Boris as the first Mihail141, the later medieval rulers are not named simply Mihail, but rather Mihail Asen. It is preferable, therefore, to abandon the usage Mihail II Asen in favor of Mihail Asen I, which is not only more accurate, but also places the last legitimate Asenid within a whole group of monarchs who hearkened back to his name as a way of highlighting their link to the founding family of the Second Bulgarian State. This leaves the often ignored son of Konstantin Asen I as Mihail Asen II, and Mihail III Šišman becomes more correctly Mihail Asen III, retaining the ordinal number assigned to him, although now in reference to his full double name. The obscure Ivan II (1298–1299) has been designatedIvan IV Smilec by his discoverer, Ivan Božilov142. Although based on rational considerations, this designation is not a particularly fortunate one. Božilov surely knew that no source used the name Smilec for this ephemeral ruler, and he must have intended it as a marker indicating that this Ivan was the son of Smilec (1292–1298). But Smilec is not a family name, not a second element of a double name, and not even a proper patronymic; the designation Ivan IV Smilec thus becomes analogous to the problematic Konstantin I Tih and Mihail III Šišman discussed above. It seems best to abandon the artificial designation altogether; this monarch does not need yet

in Славянская христоматия, ed. Г. ВОСКРЕСЕНСКИЙ, Москва 1882, p. 188; the 907 gloss of Tu- dor Doksov recording the passing of Boris I, calls the deceased the Bulgarian king named Boris, whose Christian name is Mihail… this Boris baptized the Bulgarians (кнѧз болгарскъ, именем’ Борисъ; христїанское же имѧ ем Михаил… Сеи же Борисъ болгары кр(ь)стилъ): Стара българска книжнина, vol. I, ed. И. ДУЙЧЕВ, София 1944, p. 76. № 15. The Synodikon of Boril, p. 149, fol. 201б, treats Boris I similarly: to Boris, the first Bulgarian emperor (sic!), named in holy baptism Mihail (Борѵс прьвом ц(а)р бльгарском нареченном въ с(вѧ)тѣм кр(ь)щенїи Михаиль). 140 See above for the Synodikon of Boril; the Bojana and Poganovo memorial lists simply have Бориса ц(а)ра: Поменици, p. 222, 224, similarly in the Zōgraphou list, for which see Книжнина, vol. II, p. 198, 201, № 69. 141 The modern designation Boris-Mihail for the ruler as a saint of the Bulgarian Church is very similar to the double names we have observed, but it reverses the elements, placing the Christian baptismal name second. Moreover, unlike later rulers sporting double names like Mihail Asen, Boris I did not bear a double name from the start, since he was baptized long after his birth and accession to the throne. The sources cited above also show that while he could be identified by either name, the names are not attested as a simple pairing. In similar non-Bulgarian cases, only one of the two names, pagan or Christian, is preferred: for example, István I of Hungary (997–1038), who was originally named Vajk, and Vladimir I of Kiev (978–1015), who was baptized Vasilij. 142 И. БОЖИЛОВ, Бележки върху българската история през XIII век [in:] В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, Българско средновековие, София 1980, p. 78–81. See also Pavlov in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 128. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 299 another name (least of all an artificial one), considering the long string of family names he adopted in Byzantium after leaving Bulgaria143. As for the numbering of this ephemeral ruler, Ivan IV seems to reflect Ivan I Asen, Ivan II Asen, and Ivan III Asen, designations used by Božilov elsewhere in his work144. But if we were to break up the double name Ivan Asen and count each resulting Ivan as such, we ought to include in this count Kalojan (see above) and also to break up and account for the name of Ivan Vladislav. By this logic Božilov’s Ivan IV should become Ivan VI, and several of the other aforementioned rulers should be renumbered too. On the other hand, maintaining the distinction between single and double names demonstrated in this study would allow the simpler solution of designating this last 13th-century monarch of Bul- garia Ivan II as in the tabulation above. Given the ephemeral duration of his rule and his status as a minor, this correction is perhaps more likely to pass unnoticed than to cause confusion145.

143 The former Ivan II is named by his maternal aunt, Theodōra Synadēnē, in her typikon for the monastery of the Virgin of Safe Hope (Theotokos tēs Bebaias Elpidos) as my beloved nephew, the lord Iōannēs Kōmnēnos Doukas Angelos Branas Palaiologos, the son of the most exalted lady of the Bulgar- ians,… monk Iōasaph (περιποθήτου μου ἀνεψιοῦ κυροῦ Ἰωάννου Κομνηνοῦ Δούκα Ἀγγέλου Βρανᾶ τοῦ Παλαιολόγου, υἱοῦ τῆς ὑψηλοτάτης δεσποίνης τῶν Βουλγάρων… Ἰωάσαφ μοναχοῦ): Typicon monasterii Theotoci Bebaias Elpidos, 24, 142, ed. H. Delahye, Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues, Brussels 1921, p. 93, and similarly at 23, 122, p. 84. 144 See И. БОЖИЛОВ, Фамилията…, p. 27–40 (№ I 1), 77–92 (№ I 7), 249–255 (№ II 1). 145 The existence of this Ivan II (1298–1299) has been called into question by К. КРЪСТЕВ, Имало ли е български цар Йоан IV „Смилец”?, Pbg 34.1, 2010, p. 55–60; idem, Българското царство…, p. 210–211, 232–233. Krăstev points to the absence of any indication that Theodōra Synadēnē considered her nephew a Bulgarian monarch and adopts the traditional interpretation of a passage in a letter of Theodōros Metokhitēs (Presbeutikos, [in:] L. Mavromatis, La fondation de l’empire serbe, Le kralj Milutin, Thessalonikē 1978, p. 982–1035), by Nikov, according to which Smilec’s widow ruled alone and was ready to make the Serbian king Stefan Uroš II Milutin (1282–1321) ruler of Bulgaria by offering him her hand in marriage (see П. НИКОВ, Татаробългарски отношния през средните векове с оглед към царуването на Смилеца, ГСУ.ИФФ 15 / 16, 1921, p. 37–41, 44, 46–48, 91–93); Krăstev concludes that her son Iōannēs Komnēnos Doukas Angelos Branas Palaiologos must have been born of a second marriage to an unknown husband after she returned to the Byzantine Empire. While Krăstev has proposed a scenario that is not implausible in and of itself, he has not disproven Božilov’s identification of Ivan II as Smilec’s son and heir. On the other hand, if Smilec’s widow had no son, it is difficult to see how she could have kept her son-in-law, the despotēs Aldimir, or Smilec’s brothers, the sebastokratōr Radoslav and the despotēs Voisil from the throne; as for the marriage alliance she sought to arrange with the Serbian royal family, this appears to have involved one of her daughters, as proposed by Pavlov in Й. АНДРЕЕВ, И. ЛАЗАРОВ, П. ПАВЛОВ, Кой кой е…, p. 349–350, and by В. ИГНАТОВ, 100 мита…, p. 307–316; both Pavlov and Ignatov see the intended marital alliance as the marriage between the future Stefan Uroš III (1321–1331) and Smilec’s daughter Teodora, which they date before the accession of Todor Svetoslav in 1299 / 1300. С. МИШИЋ, Српско-бугарски односи на крају 13. века, ЗРВИ 46, 2009, p. 333–340, thinks this marriage cannot have been contracted so early (opting for c. 1305 / 1306 instead), in part because he follows Nikov’s interpretation of Metochites. At any rate a later date for the marriage between Stefan Uroš III and Teodora need not necessarily negate Pavlov and Ignatov’s interpretation of the intentions of Smilec’s 300 Ian S.R. Mladjov

An additional issue pertinent to this discussion is whether rulers who were associated on the throne but did not survive to become sole (or senior) monarchs themselves should be assigned ordinal numbers. This is not generally done in historiography, as can be seen from many examples from around Europe146. The history of the Byzantine Empire provides particularly numerous examples, of which only the last, Mikhaēl IX Palaiologos (1294–1320), is generally assigned an ordinal number147. It is by analogy that we may assign ordinal numbers to Mihail Asen IV, Ivan Asen IV, and Ivan Asen V, all of them sons of Ivan Aleksandăr who were associated on the throne but never became sole or senior rulers, unlike their brothers Ivan Sracimir and Ivan Šišman. Mihail Asen IV and Ivan Asen IV fell in battles against the Ottoman Turks (in 1355 and 1349, respectively), while Ivan Asen V might have survived in the shadow of his full brother Ivan Šišman into the 1380s148. Since numbering Mihail Asen IV and Ivan Asen IV and V would not conflict with that of any later Bulgarian monarchs, it does not present a problem. The considerations above indicate that medieval Bulgarians and their monarchs typically bore single or double names, but did not seem to employ family names in spite of pre-Christian and contemporary Byzantine practice, and also did not seem to pair patronymics with their personal names. Medieval Bulgar- ian monarchs also did not assume ordinal numbers. Reviewing the names and numbering of the Bulgarian monarchs with this in mind, it becomes apparent that there is room for improvement upon pre-existing practice. And since that practice is neither completely consistent nor entirely universal, it is not unfeasible to propose its revision. The main effect of such revision would be to eliminate patronymics (like Tih and Šišman) from the formal nomenclature, and to treat double names as such, rather than as personal names followed by imaginary family names or patronymics. The imaginary family names themselves could still be used to group monarchs together in genealogical groupings for convenience (e.g., House of Asen, House of Terter, etc.). The resulting revision in the naming and numbering of monarchs seems relatively minor and, on the whole, unobtrusive. It improves our understanding of an aspect of medieval Bulgarian society, and widow in 1298 / 1299. It thus seems best to agree with Božilov that Smilec’s widow ruled Bulgaria in the name of her son in 1298–1299. 146 For example Philippe, the son and co-ruler (in 1129–1131) of Louis VI of France (1108–1137); Henry, the son and co-ruler (in 1170–1183) of Henry II of England (1154–1189); Heinrich, the son and co-ruler (in 1147–1150) of Konrad III of the Holy Roman Empire (1138–1152). 147 Not counting the purely titular Andronikos V Palaiologos, who was associated as a minor with his father Iōannēs VII Palaiologos, while the latter was governor of Thessalonica in 1403–1408. On Andronikos V, see G. T. Dennis, An Unknown Byzantine Emperor, Andronicus V Palaeologus (1400–1407?), JÖB 16, 1967, p. 173–187. Since neither a Mikhaēl nor an Andronikos reigned after Mikhaēl IX and Andronikos V, the numbering is in each case equally unproblematic. 148 For him see Й. АНДРЕЕВ, България…, p. 285–297, who also points out that the depiction of Ivan Asen V with his parents and brother in the London gospels, while giving him the imperial title, shows him bearing the crown of a despotēs instead: ibidem, p. 41–44, 286–288. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 301 it corrects the occasional oversights of earlier historians. Moreover, the process of reassessing the relevant data provides new opportunities in a field where, due to the relative scarcity of sources, so much depends on inference.

Bibliography

Sources

Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vol. I, ed. F. Miklosich, J. Müller, Wien 1860. Actes de l’Athos 4: Actes de Zographou, ed. W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. Korablev, ВВ 13: app. 1, Санкт- -Петербург 1907. Anonymi descriptio Europae Orientalis, ed. O. Górka, Kraków 1916. Aus der panegyrischen Litteratur der Südslaven, ed. E. Kałužniacki, Wien 1901. Chroniques relatives à l’histoire de la Belgique, ed. J. Brandon, G. de Roye, A. de But, Bruxelles 1870. Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. VI, pars 1, ed. G. Féjer, Buda 1829. Documente privitoare la istoria românilor, vol. I, ed. E. Hurmuzaki, Bucureşti 1887. Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed. A. Failler, V. Laurent, Paris 1984. Georgii Acropolitae opera, vol. I, ed. A. Heisenberg, Leipzig 1903; trans. R. Macrides, George Akropolites: The History, Oxford 2007. Georgii Pachymeris de Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecim, vol. II, ed. I. Bekker, Bonnae 1835. Ioannis Cantacuzeni eximperatoris historiarum libri IV, 3 vols., ed. L. Schopen, Bonnae 1828–1832. Ioannis Scylitzae synopsis historiarum, ed. I. Thurn, Berlin 1973. Johannis VIII papae epistolae passim collectae, ed. E. Caspar, [in:] MGH.E, vol. VII. La conquête de Constantinople par Geoffroi de Villehardouin avec la continuation de Henri de Valen- ciennes, ed. M. N. de Wailly, Paris 1872. Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea, Chronique de Morée aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles, ed. A. Morel-Fatio, Geneva 1885. Michel Psellos, Chronographie ou histoire d’un siècle de Byzance (976–1077), ed. É. Renauld, Paris 1926–1928. Monumenta Serbica, ed. F. Miklosich, Wien 1858. Nicephori Gregorae historiae Byzantinae, 3 vols., ed. I. Bekker, L. Schopen, Bonn 1829–1855. Nicetae Choniatae orationes et epistulae, ed. I. van Dieten, Berolini 1972. [= CFHB, 3] Synodikon of Boril, ed. and trans. И. БОЖИЛОВ, А. ТОТОМАНОВА, И. БИЛЯРСКИ, Борилов Синодик, София 2010. The Russian Primary Chronicle, trans. S. H. Cross, Cambridge, Mass. 1930. [= HSNPhL, 12] The Voices of Medieval Bulgaria, Seventh-Fifteenth Century, trans. K. Petkov, Leiden 2008. Théodore Métochite, Presbeutikos, [in:] L. Mavromatis, La fondation de l’empire serbe, Le kralj Milutin, Thessalonikē 1978. Typicon monasterii Theotoci Bebaias Elpidos, ed. H. Delahye, Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues, Brussels 1921. Werke des Patriarchen von Bulgarien Euthymius, ed. E. Kałužniacki, Wien 1901. 302 Ian S.R. Mladjov

*** Ἡ συνέχεια τῆς χρονογραφίας τοῦ Ἰωάννου Σκυλίτση, ed. E. Tsolakes, Thessalonica 1968. [= ΕΜΣ. ΙΜΧΑ, 105] *** Александрия русских хронографов, ed. В. М. ИСТРИН, Москва 1893. БАХШИ ИМАН, Джагфар тарихы, vol. III, Оренбург 1997. Битолски надпис на Иван Владислав самодържец български, ed. and trans. Й. ЗАИМОВ, В. ТЪП- КОВА-ЗАИМОВА, София 1970. България и Дубровник, Договорът от 1253 г., ed. and trans. И. БОЖИЛОВ, София 2010. Български старини из Македония, ed. Й. ИВАНОВ, София 1931. Грамота патриарха Калиста как новый источник истории болгарской церкви, ed. С. ПАЛАУ- ЗОВ, Санкт Петербург 1858. Грамоти на българските царе, ed. А. ДАСКАЛОВА, М. РАЙКОВА, София 2005. Грамоты болгарских царей, ed. Г. А. ИЛЬИНСКИЙ, Москва 1911. Животи краљева и архиепископа српских, ed. Ђ. ДАНИЧИЋ, Zagreb 1866. Именник на българските ханове (ново тълкуване), ed. and trans. М. МОСКОВ, София 1988. ЈАГИЋ В., Константин Философ и његов живот Стефана Лазаревића деспота српскога, ГСУД 42, 1875, p. 223–328. Неиздадено писмо на папа Бенедикт XII до майката на цар Иван Александър, ed. and trans. И. ДУЙЧЕВ, ИБИД 14 / 15, 1937, p. 205–210. Нови влахо-български грамоти от Брашов, ed. Л. МИЛЕТИЧ, СНУНК 13, 1896, p. 3–152. Полное собрание русских летописей, vol. I, ed. Е. Ф. КАРСКИЙ, Ленинград 1926–1928. Поменици на българските царе и царици, ed. Й. ИВАНОВ, ИБИД 4, 1915, p. 219–229. Първобългарски надписи, ed. and trans. В. БЕШЕВЛИЕВ, София 1979. Славянская христоматия, ed. Г. ВОСКРЕСЕНСКИЙ, Москва 1882. Среднеболгарский перевод хроники Константина Манасии в славянских литературах, ed. М. А. САЛМИНА et al., София 1988. Стара българска книжнина, vol. I–II, ed. И. ДУЙЧЕВ, София 1944. Старобългарски надписи / Altbulgarischen Inschriften, vol. I–II, ed. K. Popkonstantinov, O. Kronsteiner, Wien 1994–1997.

Secondary Literature Biliarsky I., The Despots in Mediaeval Bulgaria, BBg 9, 1995, p. 157–160. Du Cange C. de Fresne, Familiae Augustae Byzantinae, Paris 1680. Dennis G. T., An Unknown Byzantine Emperor, Andronicus V Palaeologus (1400–1407?), JÖB 16, 1967, p. 173–187. Failler A., Chronologie et composition dans l’Histoire de Georges Pachymère 1, REB 38, 1980, p. 5–103. Fine Jr. J. V. A., The Late Medieval Balkans, Ann Arbor 1987. Georgieva S., The Byzantine Princesses in Bulgaria, BBg 9, 1995, p. 163–201. Granberg A., Observations on Bulgarian Clan Names in the 7th–9th Centuries [in:] Civitas divino-humana: in honorem annorum LX Georgii Bakalov, ed. C. Stepanov, V. Va č ko va , София 2004, p. 551–561. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 303

Ivanova K., Un renseignement nouveau dans un manuscript bulgare du XIVe siècle au sujet de la résis- tance du tsar Ivan Šišman contre les Ottomans pres de Nikopol, EB 24.1, 1988, p. 88–93. Jireček K., Geschichte der Bulgaren, Praha 1876. Kazhdan A., Aaronios, [in:] ODB, vol. I, p. 1–2. Kazhdan A., Asan, [in:] ODB, vol. I, p. 202. Kazhdan A., Kalamanos, [in:] ODB, vol. II, p. 1091. Kazhdan A., Names, [in:] ODB, vol. II, p. 1435–1436. Margos A., Deux sources arméniennes du XIIIe siècle concernant certains événements historiques du second empire bulgare, EB 2.3, 1965, p. 295–300. Mladjov I., The Bulgarian Prince and would-be Emperor Lodovico, BMе 2, 2011, p. 603–617. Mladjov I., The Children of Ivan Asen II and Eirēnē Komnēnē, BMе 3, 2012, p. 485–500. Moravcsik G., Byzantinoturcica, vol. II, Leiden 1983. Ostrogorsky G., History of the Byzantine State, 3New Brunswick–New York 1969. Patlagean E., Les débuts d’une aristocratie byzantine et le témoignage de l’historiographie: système des noms et liens de parenté aux IXe–Xe siècles [in:] The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries, ed. M. Angold, Oxford, 1984, p. 23–42. Polemis D., The Doukai, London 1968. Pritsak O., The Polovcians and Rus’, AEMA 2, 1975, p. 321–380. Soloviev A., Un beau-frère du tsar Douchan, RIEB 1, 1934 / 1935, p. 180–187. Vásáry I., Cumans and Tartars, Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365, Cambridge 2005. *** АВДЕВ С., Българските средновековни монети, София 2007. АНДРЕЕВ Й., България през втората четвърт на XIV в., Велико Търново 1993. АНДРЕЕВ Й., Кой е “багренородният” цар Михаил от скалния надпис при село Рояк, Провадий- ско?, [in:] ТКШ, vol. V, p. 441–454. АНДРЕЕВ Й., ЛАЗАРОВ И., ПАВЛОВ П., Кой кой е в средновековна България, 3София 2012. АНДРЕЕВ Й., ПАНТЕВ А., Българските ханове и царе от хан Кубрат до цар Борис III, Велико Търново 2004. АТАНАСОВ Г., Добруджанското деспотство, Велико Търново 2009. АТАНАСОВ Г., Севастократори и деспоти в средновековна България, [in:] ТКШ, vol. V, p. 467–493. БИЛЯРСКИ И., Деспот Йоан Тертер (40-те – 90-те години XIV столетие), ИП 48.10, 1992, p. 3–23. БИЛЯРСКИ И., Институциите на средновековна България – Второ българско царство, София 1998. БИЛЯРСКИ И., Пак за добруджанските Тертеровци, ИП 49.3, 1993, p. 143–147. БИЛЯРСКИ И., Погановският поменик, ГСУ.НЦСВПИД 84 / 85, 1990 / 1991, p. 53–77. БОЖИЛОВ И., Бележки върху българската история през XIII векi, [in:] Българско средновековие, ed. В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, София 1980, p. 78–81. БОЖИЛОВ И., Българите във византийската империя, София 1995. БОЖИЛОВ И., ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, В., История на Добруджа, vol. II, Велико Търново 2004. БОЖИЛОВ И., ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, В., История на средновековна България VII–XIV век, 2София 2006. БОЖИЛОВ И., Фамилията на Асеневци (1186–1460), София 1985. 304 Ian S.R. Mladjov

БУРМОВ А., История на България през времето на Шишмановци (1323–1396 г.), ГСУ.ИФФ 43, 1947, p. 1–56 and 1–20 (= А. БУРМОВ, Избрани произведения, vol. I, София 1968, p. 220–278). ГАБЕЛИЋ С., Прилог познавања живописа цркве „Св. Никола” в Станичења, Зог 18, 1987, p. 22–36. ГЕОРГИЕВА (ТОДОРОВА) С., Дъщерята на Ростислав Михайлович и събитията в България от средата на XIII век, ИП 45.2, 1989, p. 52–56. ГЕРАСИМОВ Т., Новооткрит надпис върху иконата „Богородица Умиление” от Несебър, ИНМБ 1, 1950, p. 253–256. ГОСПОДИНОВ К., Свърлижката приписка като исторически извор, ИП 61.3 / 4, 2005, p. 151–175. ДРИНОВ М., Исторически преглед на Българската църква от самото ѝ начало и до днес, Wien 1869 (= М. ДРИНОВ, Избрани произведения, vol. II, София 1971, p. 11–165). ЗЛАТАРСКИ В. Н., История на българската държава през средните векове, vol. II, България под византийско владичество (1018–1187); vol. III, Второ българско царсвто. България при Асеневци (1187–1280), София 1934–1940. ИГНАТОВ В., Към историята на Карвунската средновековна област (XIII–XIV век), Доб 4, 1987, p. 19–28. ИГНАТОВ В., 100 мита от българската история, vol. I, София 2007. ИРЕЧЕК К., История на българите, София 1978. КОВАЧЕВ Н., Двойни лични имена в българската антропонимия, БЕ 31.4, 1984, p. 367–371. КРЪСТЕВ К., Българското царство при династията на Тертеревци, Пловдив 2011. КРЪСТЕВ К., Имало ли е български цар Йоан IV „Смилец”?, Pbg 34.1, 2010, p. 55–60. КУЗЕВ А., Великият епикерний Срацимир – виден български сановник през XIV в., Век 4.4, 1975, p. 14–17. ЛАЗАРОВ И., Владетелското име „Йоан” и култът към св. Йоан Рилски в държавно-политиче- ската идеология на второто българско царство, [in:] Светогорска обител Зограф, vol. III, ed. В. ГЮЗЕЛЕВ, София 1999, p. 90–98. ЛИТВИНА А. Ф., УСПЕНСКИЙ Ф. Б., Выбор имени у русских князей в X–XVI вв., Москва 2006. МАКУШЕВ В., История болгарь в труде К. О. Иречека 2, ЖМНП 197, 1878, p. 52–108. МАТАНОВ Х., Нови сведения за родственици на деспот Елтимир / Алдимир / , ГСУ.НЦСВПИД 81, 1987, p. 107–113. МИЛЕТИЧ Л., Една българска Александрия от 1810 год., София 1936 [= БСт, 13]. МИЛИЋЕВИЋ М., ШАФАРИК Ј., Сврљишки одломци еванђелија и запис од 1279 године, ГСУД 3, 1866, p. 244–264. МИШИЋ С., Српско-бугарски односи на крају 13. века, ЗРВИ 46, 2009, p. 333–340. НИКОВ П., Българо-унгарски отношения от 1257 до 1277 година, СБАН 11, 1920, p. 1–200. НИКОВ П., Цар Борил под светлината на един нов паметник, СБАН 3, 1912, p. 121–134. НИКОВ П., Татаробългарски отношния през средните векове с оглед към царуването на Сми- леца, ГСУ.ИФФ 15 / 16, 1921, p. 1–95. ПАВЛОВ П., Куманите в обществено-политическия живот на средновековна България (1186 г. – началото на XIV в.), ИП 46.7, 1990, p. 16–26. Monarchs’ Names and Numbering in the Second Bulgarian State 305

ПАВЛОВ П., По въпроса за заселвания на кумани в България през XIII в., [in:] Втори междунаро- ден конгрес по българистика, София 23 май – 3 юни 1986 г. Доклади, т. VI, Българските земи в Древността. България през Средновековието, ed. М. ЙОТОВА, София 1987, p. 629–637. ПАВЛОВ П., Търновските царици, Велико Търново 2006. ПАВЛОВ П., Цар Константин II Асен, LN 7 (80), 2006, http://liternet.bg / publish13 / p_pavlov / konstantin_II_asen.htm. ПАВЛОВ П., ТЮТЮНДЖИЕВ И., Българите и османското завоевание (краят на XIII – средата на XV в.), Велико Търново 1995. ПАЛАУЗОВ С., Уния в царуването на Йоанна I Асеня, БК 1.2, 1858, p. 51–63. ПИРИВАТРИЋ С., Једна претпоставка о пореклу бугарског цара Константина Асена „Тиха,” ЗРВИ 46, 2009, p. 313–331. ПОПОВИЋ М., ГАБЕЛИЋ С., ЦВЕТКОВИЋ Б., ПОПОВИЋ Б., Црква светог Николе у Станичењу, Београд 2005. СТОЯНОВ В., Куманите в българската история, ИП 61.5 / 6, 2005, p. 3–25. СТОЯНОВ С., Към четенето и тълкуването на някои места от именника на българските ханове, ЕЛ 26.4, 1971, p. 21–42. СУКАРЕВ В., Наставката – ов / -ев и хронологията на българската родовоименна система, ГРИМП 6, 2009, p. 176–182. ФЕРЈАНЧИЋ Б., Деспоти у Византији и Јужнословенским земљама, Београд 1960. ЮРУКОВА Й., ПЕНЧЕВ В., Български средновековни печати и монети, София 1990. ЏЕЛЕБЏИЋ Д., Словенски антропоними у судским актима Димитрија Хоматина, ЗРВИ 43, 2006, p. 483–499.

Abstract. The article explores the onomastic practices of medieval Bulgarians, focusing on the Second Bulgarian State, from the late 12th to the early 15th century. The collected evidence suggests that soon after their conversion to Christianity, Bulgarians abandoned the attested pre-Christian clan names. Yet, despite the undeniable strength of Byzantine cultural influence, neither aristocrats nor commoners in Bulgaria seem to have adopted Byzantine-type family names, nor, for that matter, making recourse to the use of patronymics as found among the Eastern and other Southern Slavs. Thus, for example, the name Asen became a true family name only among members of the royal family living in Byzantium. More generally, the few cases of family names or patronymics apparently applied to medieval Bulgarians, seem to be restricted to a foreign context. While family names and patronymics do not seem to have been employed in Christian Medieval Bul- garia, many individuals (at least where males are concerned) appear to have sported double names, composed almost invariably of a baptismal Christian name paired with a folk name usually derived from Slavic or even Bulgar tradition. This practice included Bulgaria’s monarchs, most of whom had such double names that should not be misinterpreted as family names or patronyms, as often done in the past. Specific names did, however, function as indicators for belonging within a particular lineage, as witnessed by the propagation of names like Asen, Terter, Šišman, and Sracimir. Thus, while these cannot be considered true family names, we could continue to use them as expedients to designate the ruling clans of Medieval Bulgaria (e.g., the House of Terter), albeit recognizing this to be a modern label. 306 Ian S.R. Mladjov

These considerations not only elucidate another aspect of cultural practice in Medieval Bulgaria, but also allow and necessitate a relatively inobtrusive emendation and systematization of the historiographical nomenclature of Medieval Bulgarian monarchs. Discarding the notion of family names and recognizing foreign patronymics for what they are, it becomes possible to recover the actual results of dynastic name selection, as well as the rationale behind them.

Keywords: Bulgaria, Byzantium, Serbia, personal names, monarchs, house of Asen, house of Terter, house of Šišman, house of Sracimir

Ian Mladjov Department of History Bowling Green State University 133 Williams Hall Bowling Green OH 43403 United States of America [email protected]

Petăr IV Ivan Asen I ═ Elena Anonyma Anonyma 1185–1197 1189–1196 [Evgenija] ═ Anonymus ═ Anonymus

Anna ═1 Ivan Asen II 2═ Eirēnē [Xenē] Aleksandăr Ivan I ═1 Anna 2═1 Boril Strez Aleksij Slav of Hungary 1218–1241 Komnēnē sebastokratōr (Kalojan) [Anisija] 1207–1218 sebastokratōr despotēs †1237 ─ Anonyma fl. 1246 fl. 1232 1196–1207 of Cumania 2═ Anonyma †1214 fl. 1228 of Hungary 1═ Anonyma of Flanders

Vitleem? Anonyma Anonyma 2═ Anonyma

fl. 1204 ═2 Henri (═) Béla IV Petraliphaina

Latin emperor of Hungary

Elena Petăr? Kaliman Asen I Tamara Marija Anonyma ═ Theodōros II †1237 1241–1246 fl. c.1253 ═ Manouēl Komnēnos (Beloslava?) Doukas Laskaris despotēs ═ Stefan Vladislav I

Tih[omir?] Iōannēs Marija Anna/Teodora Mihail Asen I ═1 Anonyma 2═ Kaliman Asen II

Kantakouzēnos ═ Petăr ═ Mico Asen 1246–1256 Rostislavna 1256

═ Eirēnē [Eulogia] sebastokratōr 1256–1257

Palaiologina

Eirēnē ═2 Konstantin Asen I 3═2 Maria 3═ Ivajlo Anonyma

Laskarina 1257–1277 Kantakouzēnē 1278–1279 (Anna?)

†1268 1═ Anonyma 1═ Alexios Philēs Laskarina

═ Jakov Svetoslav despotēs

Anonymi? Mihail Asen II Anonyma Table 1: House of Asen 1277–1279

Anna ═1 Ivan Asen II 2═ Eirēnē [Xenē] of Hungary 1218–1241 Komnēnē Table 2: Houses of Terter and Smilec

Theodōros II ═ Elena Anna/Teodora ═ Mico Asen Kōnstantinos ═ Eirēnē Doukas Laskaris 1256–1257 Palaiologos Branaina sebastokratōr

Eirēnē Jakov Svetoslav ═ Anonyma Ivan Asen III Anonyma ═ Smilec • Radoslav

Laskarina despotēs (Anna?) 1279–1280 (Anna?) 1292–1298 sebastokratōr

†1268 †1276 Laskarina ═ Eirēnē Palaiologina Palaiologina • Voisil

═ Konstantin Asen I despotēs

1257–1277

Marija ═1 Georgi Terter I 2═ Kira Andronikos Aldimir ═ Marija Ivan II Teodora 1280–1292 Marija Asan despotēs [Marina] 1298–1299 †1321 Mankous †1355 ═ Stefan Uroš III Dečanski

Euphrosynē ═1 Todor Svetoslav 2═1 Theodōra Anonyma Anna Ivan Dragušin Eirēnē

1299–1322 [Theodosia] ═ Ĵöge (“Čaka”) 1═ Stefan Uroš II Asanina

Palaiologina son of Noqai Milutin ═ Iōannēs VI

2═ Mihail Asen III †1300 2═ Mikhaēl Doukas Kantakouzēnos

1323–1330 despotēs Georgi Terter II Anonyma 1322–1323

Balik Todor Dobrotica ═ Anonyma Iōannēs V ═ Helenē arkhōn fl. 1346 despotēs Apokaukissa Palaiologos Kantakouzēnē fl. 1346 †c. 1385

Georgi Terter ≡?≡ Ivan Anonyma ═ Mikhaēl authentēs (Ivanko) Palaiologos fl. 1376 fl. 1386 despotēs †1376

Ivan Asen II 2═ Eirēnē [Xenē] 1218–1241 Komnēnē Table 3: House of Šišman

Petăr ═ Marija Dragoš sebastokratōr fl. 1253

Stefan Uroš II ═ Erzsébet Anonyma ═1 Šišman 2═ Anonyma Milutin of Hungary despotēs fl. 1292

Ana (Neda) ═1 Mihail Asen III 2═2 Theodōra Belaur Keraca T. ≡ Petrica of Serbia 1323–1330 [Theodosia] fl. 1330–1336 [Teofana] fl. 1292?–1362 Palaiologina ═ Sracimir despotēs

Ivan Stefan Mihail Lodovico Šišman Anonymi Ivan Aleksandăr Mihail 1330–1331 despotēs fl. 1338–1363 fl. 1341 1331–1371 ═ Elena? ═ Maria 2═ Teodora of Taranto of Tărnovo

Iōsēph II Ivan Šišman Šišman patriarch of Constantinople 1371–1395 fl. 1356 †1439 ═ Marija (Dragana?)

Fružin †1460

Šišman

Table 4: House of Sracimir Šišman ═ Anonyma Sevina? ═ Anonymus Sracimir? [Samuil] fl. 1341

Mihail Asen III Belaur Keraca T. ≡ Petrica ═ Sracimir Radoslav Dimităr Anonymus

1323–1330 fl. 1330–1336 [Teofana] despotēs

fl. 1337 fl. 1330

Teodora ═1 Ivan Aleksandăr 2═ Teodora Elena Ivan Mihail Teodora Sracimir [Teofana] 1331–1371 of Tărnovo [Elisaveta] despotēs fl. 1352–1355 [Silvestăr] of Wallachia †1376 fl. 1349–1359 epikernēs ═ Stefan Dušan ═ Anna fl. 1344 Palaiologina

Aleksandăr Anonyma Šišman Anonymus fl. 1363–1368 ═ Balša II fl. 1356

Mihail Asen IV Ivan Sracimir Ivan Asen IV Kera Tamara Keraca Marija Ivan Šišman Ivan Asen V Sracimir

c.1332–1355 c.1337–1397 c.1337–1349 1═ Konstantin [Makaria] c.1356–1395 c.1356–1388? (Sraco)

═ Maria/Eirēnē ═ Anna ═ Elena? despotēs ═ Andronikos IV 1═ Marija

Palaiologina of Wallachia of Wallachia? 2═ Murat I Palaiologos 2═ Marija (Dragana) • Desislava

of Serbia • Vasilisa

Doroteja Anonyma Konstantin Asen II • Anonyma Aleksandăr Fružin Anonyma ═ Tvrtko I c.1395–1422 • Anonyma †1418 †1460 (Keraca) of Bosnia

Šišman